Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual mental imagery2

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 of the debate was delete all articles except Auditory imagery, which has no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a copyright vio (though its claim of permission prevents a speedy), but certainly looks like original research. Can anybody more qualified sort through this one? I'm suggesting delete. Dvyost 06:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm the original Speedy lister... It does fall under Speedy Criteria > Articles > #8:

• An article that is a blatant copyright infringement and meets these parameters:
  • The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits

"The following entry is excerpted and adapted from Kosslyn, Ganis, and Thompson" and posted by user:KosslynLab so 1) only 1 of the 3 editors is not enough to declare its got permission. (so its copyvio) 2) its vanity 3) its OR 4) user spammed with several other articles that are vitually identical content: Mental imagery, Auditory imagery, Motor imagery. Nuke them ALL and while we're at it block User:KosslynLab who hasnt been back since posting (aka no major loss)  ALKIVAR™ 06:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that it's probably a copyvio, which is why I'm listing here; but as long as the author makes an "assertion" of permission, which (s)he has, we can't really speedy it yet. Don't worry; leaving it here for a few days with a tag won't hurt anybody. Let me go round up those others you mention... --Dvyost 07:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as copyvio. Chunks of it may be salvageable, citing the Nature Neuroscience article as a proper source, but as it stands, it just won't work. Anville 15:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as copyvio. Tedernst 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless the copyright release can be verified, Delete - 70.146.91.110 17:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - This was me. I keep losing my login. - Dalbury 17:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have time to fix this now, but it really doesn't seem right to move the votes from one article to look like votes for them all; the above users only voted on one or two of these articles, not all four. What's the matter with keeping these as separate discussions? Also, Auditory imagery had text before Kosslynlab touched it (see page history)--that text should be preserved regardless of copyvio findings. Keep Auditory Imagery but remove copyvio text; Delete the other three. --Dvyost 00:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, but delete the final few paragraphs which are (as pointed out above) some combination of original research and vanity. The topic of auditory imagery should make an excellent wiki article eventually, so please don't delete: wiki really ought to have an entry here, but let's focus on making the entry a good one. Robinh 08:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I don't think this qualifies as original research since the source article is a review article, which ought to be a summation of the state of scientific knowledge on the matter at the time of writing, and therefore encyclopedic. That being said, I have real doubts that Macmillan has relinquished their copyright on the article so that it could appear in four chunks on wikipedia. The journal prints nothing but neuroscience reviews, if this permission is the publisher's policy, it's quite conceivable that every article of every issue would appear on wikipedia. I wonder if Kosslyn (Dept of Psych, Harvard U.) is aware of, and endorses, the actions of Kosslynlab? Pete.Hurd 06:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• relisting. Need more votes for deleting 4 articles. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all but auditory imagery, and revert that, but it's a tough call. This is clearly a valid subject, but this series of articles is massively problematic. They read like original research, smell strongly of copyvio, and fail to establish a significant basis outside of a single book. It looks as if the length of the articles is out of all proportion to their interest to a general audience, and it's not immediately clear how to get from this mess into a single encyclopaedic article on mental imagery, which is what is probably needed. If the original author were motivated to distill these down into that single article I would vote to keep that, I think. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:15, 6 November 2005 (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.