Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antistasiology
- 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:43Z
- Antistasiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Not quite sure what this is. Appears to be a theory in the political science realm, but the creator is apparently a punk rocker. Google can't shed any light, either. Contested PROD, so brought here. I've asked the article's creator for any type of WP:RS indicating that this is a notable... whatever it is... but barring that, delete as, among other things, a violation of WP:V. --Kinu t/c 05:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete An academic discipline that nobody apart from the inventor of the term and author of the article seem to have written about. --CIreland 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wow. A term which produces zero Google hits. Suddenly I feel like I am back on a 2400 baud modem, using AOL when it was exclusively Macintosh-focused. And my politics would incline me to keep it rather than delete it. Delete it. Drake Dun 14:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day. If no one else follows your ideology, then does it really exist? --Cyrus Andiron
15:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC) - Comment: The author of the article left a very defensive and haughty note on my talk page after I informed him/her of relevant information on sources, verifiability, etc. The full rant is there if anyone wants to find it, but it sounds to me like we won't find any, nor will we ever get any clarification on what "this" "is"... --Kinu t/c 16:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: What I found difficult to fathom is how there can be dozens of articles on such scholarly subjects as Torgo and have one set for deletion, apparently at least partly based on the fact the person who devised the subject was a punk rocker in the 70s and 80s. On the other hand an entry on an obviously commercial enterprise such as Kelley Enterprises (Tennessee) can be blithely accepted without serious citations being required. Needless to say, there seems to be a distinct lack of consistency, even on the part of individual admins, which can be extremely confusing. And this can be extremely frustrating to someone who is trying to add a simple page. Sorry if this appears to be another rant but, as I said, it can be severely frustrating to have an entry on the 'study of resistance' be classified as invalid alongside the shining examples of 'validity' as a C movie character and a cotton producing company in Tennessee. Lozen8 04:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- If there are other articles which violate policies, then you're welcome to nominate them for deletion using any of the three processes involved there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: If it isn't on Google it doesn't exist. Interesting. Then I'm afraid I don't exist. ;-) Lozen8 04:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There are 299 ghits for "lozen8", apparently your postings on a variety of nz websites. therefore you exist. DGG 05:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Another example of fine Wikipedia scholarship. I'm in Los Angeles, California and have never posted anything one a NZ site. Have spoken with the principles involved and, as it turns out, they are not interested in having an entry in Wikipedia. All this crap with you idiots for nothing. Lozen8 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Anonymous user (speculation as to relationship to Lozen8 withheld) created the article Frank Discussion (which was a redirect to his band's article) to astroturf the concept mentioned herein. This is noted as a suspected WP:POINT violation. --Kinu t/c 16:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It was I, but a) my cookies didn't engage and I wasn't auto-logged into Wikipedia b) it was nothing quite so nefarious as you suspect, merely expanding the entry from a redirect to The Feederz to include the things he's been known for since 1989, such as his subvertisements. These items can be found in the Re/Search publications - V. Vale San Francisco,CA, where, by the way, antistasiology is mentioned as well (but it is not on Google so it apparently does not exist, but of course, in that universe it seems I am actually in New Zealand). This is something I am now doubting would be appreciated by Mr. Discussion himself as he appears to have very little regard for Wikipedia. A view I am quickly coming to share. Some of the above posts illustrate exceptionally clearly the level of scholarship to be expected here. It is terribly ironic that these expositions of reliance on supposition, reading comprehension at a fourth or fifth grade level and rampant inconsistency were made by admins. One actually managed to place me, with great glee at his own sleuthing abilities, over 6,000 miles away from my actual residence. But I suppose I should just be grateful that he/she got the planet right. Believe it or not, I used to support the idea of a GNU style encyclopedia up until I was forced to take a close look at it. I suppose it was one of those things that looks good on paper but... Lozen8 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- If there are reliable sources out there, regardless of where they are (locatable on Google or otherwise), then they can be used to support the verifiability and notability of this ideology. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is mention of it in V. Vale, Pranks 2 San Francisco Re/Search Publications 2006. But... I don't think that will satisfy these people, especially with the title, although there are some interesting concepts exhibited in that book. Antistasiology is not so much an ideology as simply studying various strategies and tactics used by resistance fighters over the centuries around the world and comparing them (particularly groups that have managed to have sustained success against enemies with much greater numbers and technological superiority) and attempting to find common threads and pitfalls. For example, what do the Taliban's tactics against first the Russians and then the US have in common with let's say Geronimo who managed to carry on a running guerrilla campaign with only 24 warriors against 5,000 US soldiers, plus their scouts who were often Apaches themselves? And would those tactics work now? Would they adapt to an urban setting? and such questions. In this case, you are setting the respective ideologies aside in the attempt to get at the core strategies and tactics used. Funny, I came to Wikipedia hoping to merely add a little article that might give some people some food for thought and possible lines of questioning, since I (obviously) found the concept fascinating. I had no idea it would turn into such a painful experience. Hell, the word antistasiology I think just means 'study of resistance' or something like it in greek... I don't Mr. Discussion or Ms Humara had any intention of anyone considering it a full academic discipline as, let's say cultural anthropology or quantum electrodynamics. Nor had I. It was an area worth studying that doesn't fit into the standard defined areas, so they gave it a name to give it some better definition and a handle. I don't think any of us would expect there to be, let's say classes taught on the subject at UCLA for example. This is where it seems some people may be getting a bit bureaucratic about a fairly simple thing.Lozen8 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll admit at the outset that I don't have access to the book (I'm assuming it's a book you're talking about) in question, but the fact that it's mentioned is at the very least a start. My apologies, also, for calling it an "ideology" earlier. I mis-spoke in saying that, as it's obviously a field of study or a conceptual framework or whatever you want to call it along those lines. Given your characterisation of it, I'd be tempted to suggest that this information might have a home in something like "Security Studies" or "Insurgency Studies" (the latter of which there's a class about at my university, the former is obviously more related to the study of the state response to the Taliban, Geronimo et al), and that may end up being a better place for it than a stand-alone article. In terms of the lack of classes at UCLA, that may end up being part of the problem. The way that Wikipedia works is that things need to be described in multiple non-trivial reliable sources (that book could well be one such, so don't lose heart) and in such a way as to achieve notability. If there's a class solely devoted to this kind of thing at a reputable university, that's going to be a considerable filip. If there isn't, it may not be the end of the world, all that's needed is more mentions in books/academic papers/newspaper articles and so on. It doesn't always sound fair, this system, but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, and this particular line is drawn here based on community consensus. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is mention of it in V. Vale, Pranks 2 San Francisco Re/Search Publications 2006. But... I don't think that will satisfy these people, especially with the title, although there are some interesting concepts exhibited in that book. Antistasiology is not so much an ideology as simply studying various strategies and tactics used by resistance fighters over the centuries around the world and comparing them (particularly groups that have managed to have sustained success against enemies with much greater numbers and technological superiority) and attempting to find common threads and pitfalls. For example, what do the Taliban's tactics against first the Russians and then the US have in common with let's say Geronimo who managed to carry on a running guerrilla campaign with only 24 warriors against 5,000 US soldiers, plus their scouts who were often Apaches themselves? And would those tactics work now? Would they adapt to an urban setting? and such questions. In this case, you are setting the respective ideologies aside in the attempt to get at the core strategies and tactics used. Funny, I came to Wikipedia hoping to merely add a little article that might give some people some food for thought and possible lines of questioning, since I (obviously) found the concept fascinating. I had no idea it would turn into such a painful experience. Hell, the word antistasiology I think just means 'study of resistance' or something like it in greek... I don't Mr. Discussion or Ms Humara had any intention of anyone considering it a full academic discipline as, let's say cultural anthropology or quantum electrodynamics. Nor had I. It was an area worth studying that doesn't fit into the standard defined areas, so they gave it a name to give it some better definition and a handle. I don't think any of us would expect there to be, let's say classes taught on the subject at UCLA for example. This is where it seems some people may be getting a bit bureaucratic about a fairly simple thing.Lozen8 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- If there are reliable sources out there, regardless of where they are (locatable on Google or otherwise), then they can be used to support the verifiability and notability of this ideology. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It was I, but a) my cookies didn't engage and I wasn't auto-logged into Wikipedia b) it was nothing quite so nefarious as you suspect, merely expanding the entry from a redirect to The Feederz to include the things he's been known for since 1989, such as his subvertisements. These items can be found in the Re/Search publications - V. Vale San Francisco,CA, where, by the way, antistasiology is mentioned as well (but it is not on Google so it apparently does not exist, but of course, in that universe it seems I am actually in New Zealand). This is something I am now doubting would be appreciated by Mr. Discussion himself as he appears to have very little regard for Wikipedia. A view I am quickly coming to share. Some of the above posts illustrate exceptionally clearly the level of scholarship to be expected here. It is terribly ironic that these expositions of reliance on supposition, reading comprehension at a fourth or fifth grade level and rampant inconsistency were made by admins. One actually managed to place me, with great glee at his own sleuthing abilities, over 6,000 miles away from my actual residence. But I suppose I should just be grateful that he/she got the planet right. Believe it or not, I used to support the idea of a GNU style encyclopedia up until I was forced to take a close look at it. I suppose it was one of those things that looks good on paper but... Lozen8 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Anonymous user (speculation as to relationship to Lozen8 withheld) created the article Frank Discussion (which was a redirect to his band's article) to astroturf the concept mentioned herein. This is noted as a suspected WP:POINT violation. --Kinu t/c 16:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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.