Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 14

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2012 April 13
2012 April 15 >

14 April 2012

  • WP:RfD
    .

This request concerns the speedy deletion of a cross-namespace redirect by RHaworth. In the discussion below, RHaworth advocates overturning his own speedy deletion. Because admins may undo their own deletions, this resolves the matter insofar as it is within the scope of DRV, i.e., whether to maintain or undo the speedy deletion.

As to what to do with the redirect, we have no clear consensus: many contributors endorse and several oppose the deletion. DRV, dedicated as it is to reviewing the deletion process, is not the place for a discussion on the merits of the redirect. Therefore I am opening a RfD discussion in which the possible solutions (redlink, cross-namespace redirect, mainspace coverage) can be examined in more detail. –  Sandstein  07:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Glucojasinogen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This redirect to

cross-namespace redirects from the main namespace, and that was also the reason given by the administrator who speedily deleted it yesterday. I pleaded the case at his talk page, User talk:RHaworth#Request for undeletion
, but my request for undeletion was declined.

I claim this to be a very special case and that

talk) 11:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Open to ideas. Actually, I'm the one who found this, not an admin. ;) I understand the reason for a general policy against cross-namespace redirects, and it's possible that a redirect isn't the best way to handle this. If we're going to IAR maybe we can create some kind of small page that says something like
{{ambox|text=''There is no article '''glucojasinogen''', a term introduced on Wikipedia as [[Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia#glucojasinogen|this hoax]], appearing in [[diabetic neuropathy]].}}
Note that cross-namespace disambiguation does occur, and so technically this could be called a "disambiguation page" that happens only to have one target in Wikipedia namespace.
But I think it is better to have anything, including the old redirect, than a red link, in order to help extinguish what was started here. Wnt (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose putting any such assertion into mainspace without referencing. "Wikipedia" doesn't exist to assert anything". If there are sources discussing this hoax, then maybe. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the page was being visited because a redlink was added at diabetic retinopathy; alas, the opportunity wasn't taken to investigate the situation at that time. Oh, and I mentioned it at Jimbo Wales' page because there had been some conversation about inaccuracies leading up to it, and then I blundered onto that. I suppose you still could put it on the Village Pump if you want to say something about it. Wnt (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. That professionals have copied Wikipedia content, or used Wikipedia as the basis for their own works is no longer remarkable. As such, I don't buy the need for a cross-namespace redirect and don't consider this a valid case of IAR. Rather, allowing a mainspace link to target to an internal page dedicated to the glorification of vandalism risks encouraging others to follow suit. I see more risk of harm in such a link than I do benefit. Resolute 20:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's perhaps a minor point, but I originally wikilinked just "hoax" above, not "this hoax", and the link directs to a list of hoaxes, not just this one. Wnt (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It doesn't exist, and is not notable enough for an article in its own right on account of the hoax. JFW | T@lk 19:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Restore. I am not sure that the case is convincing, but the arguments that we should IAR in this case are sufficient to suggest that RfD is the better venue to review this. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (delete). Not a notable hoax. If it were a notable hoax, then a mainspace entry (article or article section) should be created. We do not want to have mainspace-project space redirects. It is not the role of Wikipedia to debunk. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall below alludes to WP:Verifiable sources. I am not personally yet persuaded that reliable sources for this subject exist. He cites two references that making reference to “Glucojasinogen”, without definition, apparently assuming familiarity with the term, or assuming that it is well defined previously. What’s needed is a primary source for the definition or introduction of the term (and then we can go on to talk of neologisms). The place to discuss their inclusion is at Talk:Diabetic_neuropathy#Funny_situation, where the question is whether that article should make any mention. If it is decided to make mention within that article, then a redirect should be introduced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a hoax, I do not see it as a wikipedia-notable hoax, or even a hoax worth mentioning even briefly in any article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "does not tell the reader it is a hoax. What nonsense." - I agree it is nonsense, which is why I never made any such suggestion nor resolute who you post the same response to. A terrible strawman, what nonsense - sheesh. The points I made which you completely failed to address were (1) We have dozens of falsehoods, made up crap, hoaxes etc appear on our pages, our process is to remove them, under your standard of it having appeared here, we should preserve redirects somewhere for them just in case someone wants to know we had a hoax there are some point in time - I don't believe anyone (including you) would actually suggest this as sensible which leads to (2) The reason why we seem to think this is different is because some journals reproduced it, so (a) it's them who have perpetrated the hoax not us, because that's the only reason we are discussing this per (1) and (b) since they don't reference wikipedia as the source, there is no reason to believe people will come here to find it's a hoax. For stuff which doesn't exist, we don't have articles. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't mistake my lack of response for agreement with what you've just said. I am having trouble making sense of it. We perpetrated the hoax, we set the ball rolling, we should set the record straight. I don't care how that's done, but when 400 people a year search for "glucojasinogen", I'd like them to find the truth, not International Journal of Health Research and Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences. You are putting Wikipedia standard practice above the project's mission to inform. I shouldn't be, I should have come to expect this by now, but I'm amazed this even needs to be discussed, I'm amazed people can argue against putting this right, and the only argument they've got is, it breaches a guideline. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll repeat then, to see if you can manage to grasp the quite simple context. The pages of wikipedia over the last 10 years have been littered with hoaxes, misinformation etc. we put those right be removing them when found, we don't catalogue each an every one to inform anyone who may have read them that the hoax appeared here once. If these hadn't appear in these journal we wouldn't be having these discussions. i.e that's what is "different" about this case, that some journals reproduced them i.e. it is them who perpetrated the hoax, and apparently continue to do so. That's your stated problem here, you don't want people to find those people who are perpetrating the hoax, you'd rather have us dispell it, but that's not our purpose we don't list every single hoax ever revealed in order to try and put it right. The fact as they don't cite wikipedia as the source, there is no reason to believe that anyone will come here to be put right, or informed of the problem. In fact we don't even know that wikipedia was the source of this, it may have been a third party which was copied to both wikipedia and the journals. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee. Sorry. Mmmm. You know, I'd really appreciate it if you could explain to me, you know, what would actually be wrong with redirecting readers to an explanation. By the way, who are you? It's just that, well, you seem pretty comfortable with the routine here. Do we know each other? Do you have a user name? What is it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop: We're reaching a confusing and contradictory conclusion here. More thought is needed. From Jimbo's talk page, there are two Google scholar sources for the term "Glucojasinogen", and our relevant
    policy still says "Verifiability and not truth". Now, anyone who's acquainted with the long, long history at WT:V will know that I'm very far from a fan of that particular phrase, and I think that Wikipedia should not perpetuate misapprehensions, lies or falsehoods. But the fact is that there are sources and there is an extent to which we are responsible for those sources' existence. Arguably, in the circumstances, it's quite irresponsible of us to have a redlink in that space. This line of thought suggests that we need an article on "Glucojasinogen" for the same reason we have an article on "Bigfoot"—and besides, if we don't have an article debunking a hoax that we inadvertently helped to perpetrate, then isn't there an extent to which we're responsible for it? Shouldn't Wikipedia acknowledge its own mistakes and its own unreliability? And as a last argument in support of this reasoning, although Wikipedia is not Snopes, we do call ourselves an encyclopaedia which means we have a basic duty to inform and educate our readers. This includes telling them about things that have been published but aren't true.

    Alternatively, if you're one of those who believes that it's better for Wikipedia not to publish falsehoods, then I respectfully invite you to address the arguments I've just presented, and I also respectfully solicit your support in removing "Verifiability not truth" from WP:V in the forthcoming RFC on that subject.—S Marshall T/C 11:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    WP:N is the point of contention. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:N's met by the two sources linked from Jimbo's talk page here and here. WP:V is the relevant policy.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Verifiability is achieved. Notability is not. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But a lack of notability doesn't necessarily lead to deletion, does it? "Non-notable" means "does not have a separate article", it doesn't necessarily mean "turn into a redlink". In fact we do have a long history of deleting hoaxes of this kind outright (my favourite example being this one) but that practice does make a complete mockery of "verifiability, not truth". I should probably reiterate that I'm not necessarily arguing to restore the redirect, so much as arguing that our policies are a mess in this area and we need a more coherent and intelligible set of guidelines to work with.—S Marshall T/C 20:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd dispute that it meets the standard of verifiability. For one, the subject matter can't be verified by a couple of passing mentions.
    WP:OR --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion. Internet search engines will lead the researcher to the correct conclusion; that this is a made up word. The fact that non-English speaking authors in a couple of obscure journals plagiarized the vandalism is not interesting nor important enough to memorialize on Wikipedia beyond the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia page. Speciate (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first few Google results contain the hoax information, and that's often as far as people go in their research. Equazcion (talk) 14:48, 19 Apr 2012 (UTC)
      • A temporary situation that Google will figure out in a while. Besides, it is not Wikipedia's duty to correct a mistake made by plagiarists. Speciate (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect, per Anthonyhcole's comments.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. 4,500 Google results. Not because that denotes notability, but we should take responsibility for this hoax and make people know that it is one. Definitely an
    IAR situation: It helps spread arguably verifiable information even though it doesn't follow the letter of policy. Notability doesn't need to be shown anyway; it's just a redirect. Let's not spite ourselves by standing on some stupid technicality.Equazcion (talk)
    14:46, 19 Apr 2012 (UTC)
  • restore, ideally target would be rewritten and moved to mainspace I spent some time debating with myself what was appropriate here. -Anthonyhcole's comments did a nice job of identifying the relevant bits. I agree that A) we were in error B) a redirect is cheap and C) we should try to clarify the issue we created. My own issue is if the redirect (out of article space) will cause more confusion than not. That said, I think the idea thing would be to take the redirect target and turn it into a real list article. While such a list article would have significant problems with being original research,
    WP:IAR would seem enough to overcome that objection. Hobit (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • restore, mainly per Anthonyhcole -- nicely argued. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - If Glucojasinogen was genuinely discussed by reputable journals in a manner that qualifies as a reliable source, then it should be restored, of course. But my understanding is that this was not the case. That 2 obscure journals merely copied bogus information from Wikipedia, in which case they really aren't reliable sources for demonstrating notability, or verifiability, or anything else of this term. Even if the mentions in those journals mean that the term in some manner "exists" we need more than mere existence to warrant an article. Rlendog (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_April_14&oldid=1142604664"