Talk:Brain Gender
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brain Gender article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Note to admin[edit]
I don't know what process was used to delete the prior version of this article.
The author was not informed.
I would like the previous text made available.
I have better things to do with my time than research text all over again.
- I'm not an admin, and therefore I can't put the old page back. But I can tell you why it was deleted and it was because it looked more like an advertising than a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, there were no other articles linking to it (except for footnotes and a similar, advertising-looking page), rendering its notability dubious.
- It doesn't matter if the author wasn't informed - the information in Wikipedia should come from secondary sources, not primary ones. Wikipedia wants to give knowledge, and if everybody would just boast their own ideas, it wouldn't be really reliable.
- The process used to delete the page was to put up a proposal for deletion. Five days passed without any user objecting to it. That also means that nobody was interested in the subject, and therefore it has no reason to be in Wikipedia. Another thing Wikipedia is not is a dump of information not interesting.
- I'm not saying that it is a bad book - it may be great, but it needs to be interesting to others to belong to Wikipedia. And frankly, I already think it looks more like an advertising than an article. Mikael Häggström 18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just wanted to make clear the distinction between advertising and notability by this example: "Tom, Dick and Harry say the pyramids are great" is advertising. "The pyramids are more than 5000 years old" is notability. Notability speaks for itself. The subject of this article needs to be expressed more like the second example than the first one to avoid being deleted again. I'm not saying that Steven Pinker has no credentials, but that's not the point. Wikipedia holds consensus over credentials. However, for facts hard to form a consensus without research, credentials matter in the research. For the pyramid example, "Tom, Dick and Harry say the pyramids are great" doesn't really matter for Wikipedians. On the other hand, "Tom, Dick and Harry estimated the pyramids to be 5000 years old" matter much. Furthermore, here the credentials play a role, because if Tom, Dick and Harry are complete amateurs, the result would be taken less seriusly Mikael Häggström 08:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)