Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statistics education

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 none -- speedily deleted. (Non-admin account) technical closure. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article is an essay, full of original research and crystalballing. See for instance: "We anticipate continued growth and visibility of the field of statistics education as more research is conducted..." A comment by Dbenzvi (talk · contribs) on the article's talk page suggests that the article was based on J. Garfield and D. Ben-Zvi, "The discipline of statistics education", in C. Batanero (Ed.), Background Papers of the Joint ICMI /IASE Study on Statistics Education in School Mathematics: Challenges for Teaching and Teacher Education, University of Granada, Spain (2007). Aecis^Brievenbus 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not based upon that paper. It is that paper, copied almost word-for-word. Dbenzvi (talk · contribs) claims, on xyr user page, to be the D. Ben-Zvi who wrote the paper. We have no way to know that, nor any reason to care. What is important is the Wikipedia:No original research policy, which in part means that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. It isn't the place for publishing unpublished academic papers. That's exactly what's happening here. When the academic paper is peer reviewed, fact checked, and published in a reputable academic journal, then it can become a source for a Wikipedia article on the subject. But copying unpublished, unreviewed, papers is not how a verifiable tertiary source encyclopaedia is created. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a journal. Delete and start again. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Plagiarism, possible copyvio. =Axlq (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete almost word for word copy of the paper by Garfield and Ben-Zvi, delete as plagiarism - Dumelow (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with the above. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I prod' it came out and it was declined, so of course I'll agree on AfD Mbisanz (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete would have said personal essay but copyvio seems a better fit per above discussion. JJL (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not speedily delete. Give the author time to post permission. Then give time to change it from an essay into an encyclopedia article as he has said he will (see the talk page). Fg2 (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please let the author know on the talk page of the article the sorts of problems you see with the article. Fg2 (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2007 (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.