Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eye of Tyr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. lifebaka++ 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eye of Tyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This appears to be a hoax article. I've read the references from Nature (and I note that it appears elsewhere in an article where it does actually back up the article), and the Michlovic article, and they are completely irrelevant to the article, let alone referencing any 'Eye of Tyr'. Neither of the external links mention it. I haven't managed to get hold of the Gordon article or Svanberg but searches with the titles and 'Tyr' produce nothing. If archaeological groups and media personalities are interested in it, then they have managed to keep their interest off the Internet. I hope that the article's creator can show that I am completely off base, but I'll be surprised (although in one way pleased) if that happens. dougweller (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Probable hoax. Appears to be a part of the video game Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn. [1][2][3] -Atmoz (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; no evidence that this is real, and misuse of references is a very bad sign. I am also worried that this was created by an admin, and would like to hear some explanation from him/her, as this is not the behaviour one would expect from an admin. Fram (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The admin involved has been automatically notified about this AfD, and I am hoping he will come along. I agree entirely that I don't expect other admins to behave like this. dougweller (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. I concur with nom's evaluation of those two cites; in addition, could not find a journal/magazine named Orient and the talk-show host link provides nothing to support the article. A Google Books search of the title (ISBN 9122020071) reveals the word "Tyr" only once, on page 338, and not in the context of "Eye of Tyr." I would close this myself but I think it can use a couple more opinions and a little more time. More to the point, though: I would like to caution against turning an AfD discussion into a referendum on an editor, admin or otherwise. Yes, we expect admins to be more careful, but all of us are capable of making mistakes. Frank | talk 13:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But not from this level. Either he truly created it, or was duped into creating it for someone else. But whoever actually wrote the article did so with the blatant intent to mislead. You can misquote or misinterpret one source, but not all your sources to such a level. Writing an article about a band, restaurant, person, ... who turns out not to be notable enough is no big deal. Using poor sources (blogs, ...) is no big deal either generally. Deliberately creating hoaxes by using very respectable sources which have in fact nothing at all to do with the subject of the article is a big deal, as it one of the worst kinds of vandalism, and if an admin would knowingly do this, it would not be a defendable mistake but an act that could lead, in my opinion, to either desysopping or temporary blocking, since I can not trust said person with any of the tools any longer (yes, article creation is not admin tool use or abuse, but when you act in a way that people no longer trust you at all, you have a serious problem) Fram (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add that he knows he is being discussed here as I notified him before Frank's post. He also knows about the AfD because he has responded to someone else on this talk page since the AfD notice. And, evidently no Admin has been sysopped except for misuse of tools. But this does need a very good explanation as to why the article was recreated (the original creator only edited the one time he/she created the article). dougweller (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In all honesty, I didn't actually write the article. I uploaded it as a request from the Wikipedia Review for another person (see thread here, actually content was passed in a PM) who claimed to be acting in good faith, a claim I believed, with permission (I made sure it's all hunky-dorey with the GFDL) and the content looked fairly good to me at the time. I don't have access to any of the sources listed, but nothing jumped out at me as blatantly false or such, so I believed that it was of a fringe-but-true and apparently notable topic. It appears that my initial assumption on the article was wrong, a mistake I am more than willing to own up to. I also agree with Frank that there are better venues for an in-depth discussion of my actions, I would prefer if such a discussion was held at one of those. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 14:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the contributions on Wikipedia Review of the person who made the request, see [4].dougweller (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And let's grant lifebaka AGF, he made a mistake, trusted the wrong person, but that can happen to all of us. dougweller (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the contributions on Wikipedia Review of the person who made the request, see [4].dougweller (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In all honesty, I didn't actually write the article. I uploaded it as a request from the Wikipedia Review for another person (see thread here, actually content was passed in a PM) who claimed to be acting in good faith, a claim I believed, with permission (I made sure it's all hunky-dorey with the GFDL) and the content looked fairly good to me at the time. I don't have access to any of the sources listed, but nothing jumped out at me as blatantly false or such, so I believed that it was of a fringe-but-true and apparently notable topic. It appears that my initial assumption on the article was wrong, a mistake I am more than willing to own up to. I also agree with Frank that there are better venues for an in-depth discussion of my actions, I would prefer if such a discussion was held at one of those. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 14:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add that he knows he is being discussed here as I notified him before Frank's post. He also knows about the AfD because he has responded to someone else on this talk page since the AfD notice. And, evidently no Admin has been sysopped except for misuse of tools. But this does need a very good explanation as to why the article was recreated (the original creator only edited the one time he/she created the article). dougweller (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But not from this level. Either he truly created it, or was duped into creating it for someone else. But whoever actually wrote the article did so with the blatant intent to mislead. You can misquote or misinterpret one source, but not all your sources to such a level. Writing an article about a band, restaurant, person, ... who turns out not to be notable enough is no big deal. Using poor sources (blogs, ...) is no big deal either generally. Deliberately creating hoaxes by using very respectable sources which have in fact nothing at all to do with the subject of the article is a big deal, as it one of the worst kinds of vandalism, and if an admin would knowingly do this, it would not be a defendable mistake but an act that could lead, in my opinion, to either desysopping or temporary blocking, since I can not trust said person with any of the tools any longer (yes, article creation is not admin tool use or abuse, but when you act in a way that people no longer trust you at all, you have a serious problem) Fram (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2009 (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.