Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empathetic Logic Analysis

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empathetic Logic Analysis

edit
Empathetic Logic Analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet requirement for notability (multiple independent reliable sources over time). The only citations are of the author's own work - no independent sources present or found. As of this edit, multiple searches for the article title in Scholar (and other databases), or citations of the two cited works, produce no results. Nobody cited these works. Citations #3 is merely an obit which doesn't mention ELA, and #4 merely lists Diebel's book, which makes no mention of ELA. --Lexein (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I couldn't see where this could be merged into, either. -Lexein (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, happy to share how the material links. Currently under review by the National Defense University http://www.ndu.edu for inclusion in the program at the National War College this fall. All materials linking the two are under restriction for dissemination, without prior approval of NDU. Sorry for the translucency, not my call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReismanS (talk • contribs) 21:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please produce a) evidence that anyone has cited either of the first two cited works in the academic or scientific communities or b) evidence that anyone has discussed the notion of ELA anywhere. Allusions to pending secrecy-bound government support are prima facie dismissable. Without the requested evidence, there is no basis upon which Wikipedia policy and guideline permits inclusion of this article. I hope NDU implements similar standards for inclusion in their course materials vetting process. BTW that use of "translucency" is incorrect; "opaqueness" might be better. --Lexein (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(let's maintain indentation of the discussion) - Lexein
Lexin, totally get it and respect the position. Please email me at [REDACTED] and I will provide the requested information. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReismanS (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We redact and tend not to publish private email addresses of individual editors - it's a privacy and identity-validation thing. Better: use Email this user in the left column of User pages.
  2. Please read about reliable sources and verifiability of claims. If no published independent reliable sources wrote anything about ELA or those two papers, then the article is sunk. We cannot accept first-person (author's) word of the validity or notability of a subject - that is established only by independent reliable sources over time.
  3. We do things in public here at WP, especially discussion and sourcing of articles and content within them (there are three exceptions which don't apply here.) If your supporting material or sources are not available for public discussion and evaluation, then Wikipedia is most likely not ready for an article about ELA at this time. --Lexein (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(indented so as not to interfere with "keep" or "delete" comments by other editors) - Lexein
  • Note to Lexein: I sent you an email yesterday as requested; I greatly appreciate your efforts in maintaining the highest standards at Wikipedia. Since you took the initiative to flag this article for deletion, I would hope that you would take ownership of reviewing the supporting materials I can provide. If you are not comfortable with this option, I would ask that you either a)remove your notice to delete this article, or, b) point me towards someone at Wikipedia so that I can share the supporting materials with them for proper disposition of this situation. Thanks so very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReismanS (talk • contribs) 15:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ask you to communicate with me privately, and I will be deleting that email unread, because you have implied that it may contain restricted, secret, or embargoed information to which I have no right. Simply publicly state the independent reliable sources which have discussed or cited your two published papers on ELA. Read WP:42, WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources. This page, right here, is the appropriate venue for discussing the deletion of this article. You are welcome to communicate with anyone you like. See WP:Dispute resolution if you think I'm doing something wrong. --Lexein (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(indented to maintain thread) --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Lexein:Sorry you felt the need to delete my email without reading it. I have sent an email to your personal email accounts @ Yahoo; hopefully you will take the time to read those civil notes as I seek to find some resolution. In an effort of 'Transparency' I use my real name @ WP, versus hiding behind a cryptic user ID. Just sayin'. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReismanS (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate: Independent reliable sources which are not available to the public in one form or another are generally unacceptable, indicating premature article creation. I don't know how else to say it.
Anybody else care to weigh in here? I mean, seriously, wut? --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Lexein: Since you have avoided all attempts on my part to provide the information you seek, I have filed for Dispute Mediation to seek a proper disposition of this issue. Further, since you have not engaged in a productive dialog, I'd like to remove the notice "Article for Deletion' until official mediation helps us resolve our differences. Out of respect for the Mediation process, please do not re-post the notice. Thank you again for all your help in making WP the preeminent resource on the web. Have a great weekend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReismanS (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:AFD notice language is clear: do not remove the notice until the WP:AFD is closed by a third party. The WP:Requests for mediation/Empathetic Logic Analysis, of which you failed to notify me, was rejected. Deal with that first - the AfD remains open for other editors to comment, and yet another editor to close. If anyone supports keeping, let them comment here, and let consensus work.
I have repeatedly requested that you produce published independent reliable sources here, or in the article, in public per Wikipedia RS guideline or V policy. If you produce them here, or in the article, for discussion, the matter might quickly end. Your fight is not with me. Remember, another user PRODed the article, and yet another user agreed (above) with deletion. --Lexein (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC) (edited)[reply]
(please maintain thread indentation. This *Note to Lexein business is unnecessary.) --Lexein (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Lexein: This has been a great learning experience and I appreciate you taking me on this journey of discovery. Anyway, I did refile for mediation and contacted the Mediator User:AGK directly in hope of expediting the process. I did spend some time reviewing the guidelines for Arbitration, making note of the subject of Sensitive Materials, which I think might be the issue at play. More specifically, the information I have offered to you, as a veteran editor, is sensitive in nature. Unfortunately, despite all my attempts at providing you with this information vie email (on WP and at your three personal email accounts on Yahoo), you have ignored my offers. Hence, I do not have an issue with you; I do have issue in the manner in which you have approached editing my contribution. Regardless, I'll leave it to the Mediator, and if needed, the Arbitrator, to resolve our different POVs. Thanks again for everything and have a great weekend! --ReismanS (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(please maintain thread indentation. Please read WP:DISCUSSION) --Lexein (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Lexein: I have emailed the Mediation Committee for their input. On the Note to Lexien issue, I tend to be a bit more formal in my communications, ('Dear', 'Please', 'Thank You', 'Regards'), so, while unnecessary for some, I find it leads to a more civil dialog. Have a good night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReismanS (talk • contribs) 01:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blaring, deliberate, repeated bolding and username calling-out is not particularly WP:CIVIL. Please see WP:DISCUSSION. See also, other AfD discussions, for examples of considerate behavior. I'm not making this stuff up - see for yourself. --Lexein (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(please maintain thread indentation.)--Lexein (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Lexein. Thank you for pointing me to WP:CIVIL, it was helpful. In reading the article, I did not find mention of 'repeated bolding' or 'username calling-out', I may have missed it, if so, sorry about that. I did enjoy the article WP:Assume_good_faith as I have been assuming your motivations are for the betterment of WP. Thanks again for sharing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReismanS (talk • contribs) 10:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(please maintain thread indentation.)--Lexein (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is still an AfD discussion page, and the left margin is, by general practice, reserved for new comments by arriving editors responding to the AfD. And maintaining comment threading indentation (either continually indenting more, or maintaining the current level with a blank line between) is a generally agreed-upon Talk page practice, not invented by me. This page is not owned by any particular user, but I support the generally agreed-upon practice. Careful reading will show that I have not bitten anyone. --Lexein (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--ReismanS (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and per Hairhorn. There are no hits in the expected places (books, scholar), as has been noted. Also, the references are padded. The term doesn't appear in most of the sources cited.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Going by the argument of ReismanS if the content is not meant to be distributed then it might not be a good idea to place in Wikipedia. You might be breaching some secrecy laws by placing the material here. Without reliable references the material might br regarded as a hoax. I don't see a win/sin situation unless the material is marked by the college to be free to distribute - (Contribs • Talk) 00:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empathetic_Logic_Analysis&oldid=1166905031"