Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geology of Socotra

Add links
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 keep. The nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 16:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geology of Socotra

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

    [Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

    Geology of Socotra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article is not sourced not notible and most importantly false and provides a lot of unsourced biased materials SharabSalam (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is full of unsourced and a hell of biased pov. Statements that aren't sourced will be deleted without questioning for the source because they are false SharabSalam (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Nothing about this article is a cause for deletion. Rather, this appears to be a continuation of the nominator's efforts to remove factual, sourced information from the article for, I suspect, nationalist reasons. I've reviewed at least one of the sources, confirmed the accuracy of the removed content, and restored a previous version of the article (while cleaning up some of the text and making the citations explicit and inline). There's actually quite a bit of room for expansion here, as other sources exist that would provide both more details and better context. But that's clearly not a matter for AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Current article is verifibly sourced and a quick search of refseek, an academic search engine, returns quite a few more articles on "Geology of Socotra" by scientific, peer reviewed journals which can be added to the article. I can't add them today but should be able to in the next few days. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    comment reply to @Aurornisxui, Squeamish Ossifrage, and Coolabahapple: Here is a list of there of the best islands in the world according to google: Bali, Santorini, Maui do we have a saperated geology article of any of these Island(and this applies to any non independent Island article in Wikipedia)? Actually there is no article for a geology of a non independent place. I wonder why there is an odd case on Socotra article? why can't it be in one article? if this article passed afd discussion I will make tons of articles about geology of any non independent place, thanks --SharabSalam (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD isn't the place to talk about merging, that would be WP:MERGE. Aurornisxui (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    When I firstly nominated this article for deletion there were only two references in this large article and it had a lot of WP:OR and WP:POV issues also the fact that article like this shouldn't exist in the first place as a saperated article now things has changed and there are actual sourced materials in this article so I think they should be merged into Socotra article and that wasn't possible when the article was only 1-2 references.SharabSalam (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep. No valid rationale presented. The nominator's first edit to the article (which was reverted) shows that they have a problem with the name Somali plate. The AfD nom came straight after. Since this is factual, I can only surmise that the nom's issue is political, in not wanting Socotra associated with Somalia. Wikipedia does not care about such sensitivities, and it is being disruptive to try and purge it regardless of what is clearly found in sources. So someone please close this and stop AfD effort being wasted on it. SpinningSpark 22:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spinningspark: There is no political reason behind the nomination!! Stop assuming bad faith. The only reason is that the article was not sourced and most of it was POV plus as I said here is a list of three best islands in the world according to google: Bali, Santorini, Maui do we have a saperated geology article of any of these Island(and this applies to any non independent Island article in Wikipedia)? Actually there is no article for a geology of a non independent place. I wonder why there is an odd case on Socotra article? why can't it be in one article? if this article passed afd discussion I will make tons of articles about geology of any non-independent place!!! The article when I nominated to deletion was full of WP:OR and WP:POV issues and also the user who created the article has a history of creating geology articles and lot of them are getting nominated for deletion [1]
    in fact the user was also warned about this issue in his talk page way before I even discovered this page by another user. you seem not to care about what is going on and what is happening just pointing immediately your finger to me saying I hold the a point of view.

    SharabSalam (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC); added another reply SharabSalam (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything you have said there is either false or meaningless:
    • The article was not unsourced (at least, not completely unsourced) when you nominated it, as has already been pointed out to you, so please stop making that allegation.
    • Nobody is agreeing with you that the article is POV, your deletions from the article make no sense and have largely been restored. You eiter need to desist with that allegation, or explain what POV is being promoted by the use of "Somali plate".
    • What google thinks are the "three best islands" is utterly irrelevant, and I've no idea how you extracted that from google. As usual, you provide no link or evidence. Whether or not an island is independent is not relevant. Our criteria for inclusion of a subject are at WP:GNG, and if a subject meets it, it can have an article. SpinningSpark 09:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, or doesn't exist. Wikipedia is not finished so those kinds of arguments have no validity at AfD.
    • On your threat to "make tons of articles about geology of any non-independent place", normally, I would say yes, why not, if they can be sourced, go ahead. But you so clearly do not know what you are doing that I would strongly discourage that.
    • I'm not seeing any of the user's other geology articles up for deletion as you claim. Linking to the user's contributions log is useless. I checked about a dozen of them and they are all still up with no nomination. Please use diffs for claims like that, or link directly to the AfDs.
    • The user has not been warned. At least, they have not been warned for creating geology articles. Again, please use diffs for claims like that. Far from being warned, the user should be congratulated for creating so many geology articles for Wikipedia.
    To continue to raise points that other's have already shown you are incorrect shows that you have a very bad case of WP:IDHT. SpinningSpark 09:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with that statement about Somalia and I am going to say this once and for all hoping you would understand and never mention this again; if you repeated again your accusations I am going to report this to other administers. Stop assuming bad faith!!!!!! Okay? Secondly I said I am against creating an independent article about Socotra when it can easily be merage with no problem to Socotra article in geology section. And I might also need to repeat saying that when I firstly nominated this article for deletion it was only 1-2 source and it was larger than this and full of WP:POV issues like Socotra is initially located in Oman or something like that that I couldn't find source of and was likely to be original research. The reason why Im repeating this is because your ignored all of what I said and started talking about Somalia WTH IS WRONG WITH YOU? I have no problem with the Somalia thing and I deleted once because the IP who added it put a reference not an online reference and also he put it in Socotra article and that was suspicious for me. --SharabSalam (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned the Somali plate again because you mentioned POV again and that was the only issue you had raised prior to nomination for deletion. I accept that you no longer dispute this, which begs the question why you are persisting with this deletion nomination. You now say a problem is the article said "Socotra is initially located in Oman or something like that". What it actually said was "the island is geologically more closely related to the geology of Oman." This was cited (in a ref you deleted). You justified this above saying it was "suspicious" because the "reference not an online reference". Deleting references because you cannot read them is an outrageously disruptive thing to do, especially when the source is a high quality one from a scholarly journal – see Wikipedia:Offline sources for more information. Just for your information, here is a book source that plainly says Socrotra was rifted from Oman. You seem to be equating unsourced information (or even worse information that is in sources you can't read) with POV. This is not correct, these are two different issues. Unsourced does not mean it is unsourcable. Unsourced information is dealt with in the first instance by asking the editor concerned, raising the issue on the talk page, or by adding a citation needed tag. Unless it is obviously, or highly likely, wrong, the first move should rarely be removal. It certainly shouldn't be nomination of the page for deletion. SpinningSpark 23:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad examples; The first one is a country the second one is created by the same user who is spamming articles. --SharabSalam (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither the Isle of Wight nor Skye are countries, and neither was created by User:Zircon 2. SpinningSpark 23:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also bad examples these are states and territories that were independent. Anyway I will create tons of articles and I have already started writing articles about tons and tons of islands and let's see if that's going to pass--SharabSalam (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can create well-sourced, tightly-focused geology articles, I don't see a problem with that. If you're intending to just mass-produce stubs to prove a point, I don't think you'll find the ultimate result particularly satisfying. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Keep - There is no reason this article needs to be deleted. Skirts89 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I withdraw my nomination for deletion. Apparently everybody is against the nomination and it doesn't seem that it's going to be deleted. I have a different opinion about this article and I think I might be wrong. --SharabSalam (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2019 (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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geology_of_Socotra&oldid=878393870"