Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sociopaths in Society
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 and improve. Any rename discussion can take place on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sociopaths in Society[edit]
- Sociopaths in Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essay / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(vote changed, see below) - Essay / original research, and an invalid content fork of sociopath. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- It's not a content fork of a page that we've never had an article at, nor, indeed, is it a content fork of sociopathy, at which we've never had anything more than what amounts to a disambiguation without any sources. Indeed, the major criticism at both talk:sociopathy and talk:sociopath is that we've never had a decent article for either. This would actually be such an article, and the only problems with it as it stands are that sociopathy exists and only an administrator can rename over it, to put this article in its place. That's what should happen, here. (As far as I can tell, there's no edit history at sociopathy that's ever been used anywhere else. There's barely ever been any content to use.) The only problem here is the article's title. It is otherwise a useful contribution to the encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The appropriate action is still delete. What you are saying is this: (a) we need article X. (b) This is article Y. (c) It has a different title from article X. (d) It has different content from article X. (e) Its current content is fundamentally encyclopaedic because it is original research. (f) Let's keep it anyway because we need article X. - Surely you can see the problem with this logic? Just delete it, and make a real article on sociopathy with a correct title. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again at AFD you are wrong on just about every point of your argument. This is a real article on sociopathy, and from all appearances is based upon sources discussing the subject and is not a novel thesis on the subject at all. Stop being so desperate to delete something that you'll bend policy out of all proportion to maintain your position. The only problem with this article — the only problem — that makes it not a valid stub article on the subject of sociopathy is that it isn't at that title, because there's an edit history that is largely useless standing in the way of it simply being renamed there with the page move tool.
First you claim that this is a content fork, and when that's proven wrong, by simple dint of pointing out that you didn't check to see whether there was in fact an article there in the first place for it to be forked from, you want it to be original research, based upon nothing more than unsupported assertion of the same. (Name one of the sources that the article's creator cited in the article that you have actually read and checked to see whether the content is unsupported by it.) Stop flailing around trying to make any arguments that you can fit the foregone conclusion and try actually looking at the article at hand on the basis of content and deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename (on basis of improvements since nomination) - I think the last time that we disagreed on a deletion discussion, consensus was wholeheartedly on my side, so I'm not quite sure where this "once again" is coming from. But look, my initial argument was completely correct at the time I made it (which I could elaborate on, but in view of what I'm about to say would be a waste of time). Since then, you've significantly improved the article, which I hadn't noticed, to the point where it is STILL an awful article on the unallowable topic "sociopaths in society" but is actually a pretty good starting point for an article on "sociopathy". Procedurally, the correct path is to delete this article, userfy it to your user space, and then allow you to use the content to create an article of sociopathy. However, practically speaking, I think an WP:IAR approach of renaming it to a name befitting its new content would be better, both for involving less bureaucracy, and as preserving the edit history. I have accordingly changed my vote to rename, on the basis of the work you have done. What it gets renamed to I don't much mind as long as the name accurately reflects the new content. And next time, you can get the same result with a polite notice "I have improved the article", rather than a personal attack on me. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your argument was as wrong when you made it as it is now. (Pretending that that's a personal attack on you is yet another error on your part, by the way.) The irony here is that I've done very little to the content of this article except trim a superfluous section heading from the start, use templates for citations, and fix some wikimarkup. There is no new content, and no need for any such notice. The content is the same as it was from the start. You just didn't look at it without having already formed the conclusion to delete before reviewing the article and thinking about how to work on it. And you're even wrong about the procedure, too (not least because userfication doesn't involve deletion, and userfication here is completely wrongheaded and contrary to the principle of collaborative editing on articles in article space, which I appear to be the only person putting into action, by collaboratively cleaning up someone else's writing, in this particular case). The procedure, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is to use editing tools to edit articles in the normal manner. The only thing that requires an administrator here is the renaming over the useless edit history at sociopathy. Everything else to improve the article requires only the ordinary editing tool. Per deletion policy, if an article has the wrong title, one renames it, rather than have it deleted. Per deletion policy, if an article has a spurious and unnecessary section heading for its introduction, one just takes that off with the edit tool, rather than have the whole article deleted. My goodness the repeatedly erroneous argument here is saddening evidence that you aren't even thinking about cleanup and collaboration! All of this is ordinary cleanup activity and collaborative work on article writing, that people who do such cleanup in collaboration with other editors in order to help improve their work should have no problem in recognizing in an article. It wasn't as if there wasn't a big clue, with the boldfaced word in the opening definition in the first sentence of the article, as to what to head for in this case. Uncle G (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article wasn't capable of cleanup in that the article title was not a suitable title for an article; it was not capable of establishing the notability of its topic as to do so it would need to show that there was sufficient content to justify a sub-article of "sociopathy" rather than a merge into that article. There was no such article, and at the time of nomination none of the content met WP:V, so the article title was invalid and the content was valueless, hence delete. What you've done is not fix the article, but rather use the article topic as a container for unrelated, but worthwhile, content. And "once again [...] you are wrong" is the very definition of an ad hominem attack - attacking the argument by reference to experience with the person. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your argument was as wrong when you made it as it is now. (Pretending that that's a personal attack on you is yet another error on your part, by the way.) The irony here is that I've done very little to the content of this article except trim a superfluous section heading from the start, use templates for citations, and fix some wikimarkup. There is no new content, and no need for any such notice. The content is the same as it was from the start. You just didn't look at it without having already formed the conclusion to delete before reviewing the article and thinking about how to work on it. And you're even wrong about the procedure, too (not least because userfication doesn't involve deletion, and userfication here is completely wrongheaded and contrary to the principle of collaborative editing on articles in article space, which I appear to be the only person putting into action, by collaboratively cleaning up someone else's writing, in this particular case). The procedure, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is to use editing tools to edit articles in the normal manner. The only thing that requires an administrator here is the renaming over the useless edit history at sociopathy. Everything else to improve the article requires only the ordinary editing tool. Per deletion policy, if an article has the wrong title, one renames it, rather than have it deleted. Per deletion policy, if an article has a spurious and unnecessary section heading for its introduction, one just takes that off with the edit tool, rather than have the whole article deleted. My goodness the repeatedly erroneous argument here is saddening evidence that you aren't even thinking about cleanup and collaboration! All of this is ordinary cleanup activity and collaborative work on article writing, that people who do such cleanup in collaboration with other editors in order to help improve their work should have no problem in recognizing in an article. It wasn't as if there wasn't a big clue, with the boldfaced word in the opening definition in the first sentence of the article, as to what to head for in this case. Uncle G (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename (on basis of improvements since nomination) - I think the last time that we disagreed on a deletion discussion, consensus was wholeheartedly on my side, so I'm not quite sure where this "once again" is coming from. But look, my initial argument was completely correct at the time I made it (which I could elaborate on, but in view of what I'm about to say would be a waste of time). Since then, you've significantly improved the article, which I hadn't noticed, to the point where it is STILL an awful article on the unallowable topic "sociopaths in society" but is actually a pretty good starting point for an article on "sociopathy". Procedurally, the correct path is to delete this article, userfy it to your user space, and then allow you to use the content to create an article of sociopathy. However, practically speaking, I think an WP:IAR approach of renaming it to a name befitting its new content would be better, both for involving less bureaucracy, and as preserving the edit history. I have accordingly changed my vote to rename, on the basis of the work you have done. What it gets renamed to I don't much mind as long as the name accurately reflects the new content. And next time, you can get the same result with a polite notice "I have improved the article", rather than a personal attack on me. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again at AFD you are wrong on just about every point of your argument. This is a real article on sociopathy, and from all appearances is based upon sources discussing the subject and is not a novel thesis on the subject at all. Stop being so desperate to delete something that you'll bend policy out of all proportion to maintain your position. The only problem with this article — the only problem — that makes it not a valid stub article on the subject of sociopathy is that it isn't at that title, because there's an edit history that is largely useless standing in the way of it simply being renamed there with the page move tool.
- The appropriate action is still delete. What you are saying is this: (a) we need article X. (b) This is article Y. (c) It has a different title from article X. (d) It has different content from article X. (e) Its current content is fundamentally encyclopaedic because it is original research. (f) Let's keep it anyway because we need article X. - Surely you can see the problem with this logic? Just delete it, and make a real article on sociopathy with a correct title. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The opening sentence, A sociopath is somebody who exhibits sociopathy, who behaves in a way that suggests they have no conscience, shows that whatever's here needs to either find a home in the main article on sociopathy, or disappear. EEng (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now and merge some content with sociopath. This is not original research as suggested by the nominator (see references in article). Biophys (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Somebody (with more time than myself) should check those references. I checked one (an article that I authored myself) and it is used to source a statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote in that commentary. --Crusio (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2010 (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.