Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disaster Risk Management in East Asia

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. However, I've added both advertising and COI tags. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster Risk Management in East Asia[edit]

As was determined during the CSD discussion from this article's previous incarnation, the author is part of the team at the World Bank that compiled this information on its own activities and, as such, this is original research in violation of Wikipedia policy. ~~In addition, there is a conflict of interest.~~ —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability established the usual way, no WP:NOR problems (as this is all already published information from reliable sources). WilyD 17:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reporting on one's own activities certainly is original research. The fact that one has written it elsewhere previously doesn't make it less so. And the "reliable source" given is the author's own work, so it doesn't qualify as an unbiased third-party reliable source. Finally, I'm adding WP:COI to my original entry. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:COI is not a criteria for deletion, so the fact that the author of the article is citing his own work and has a vested interest should have no bearing on whether to keep or eliminate this ariticle. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a whole lotta work, but original research nor conflict of interest are not reasons to delete an article. It should be templated accordingly instead. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's my impression that "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought" is dispositive, and that it means that such material should be removed. If a whole article is original research, leading to the entire content being removed, then it's an empty article, and an empty article is indeed subject to deletion. There is no need to keep an article around, consisting entirely of Wikipedia violations, as a placeholder until someone else, some day, decides to replace the content that doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all with content that does. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should review WP:DELETE. Original research is not a grounds for deletion. Only if it has been demonstrated that attempts to find sources failed should an article be a candidate for deletion based on original research. And since the discussion page is non-existent, I'd say that hasn't been shown yet. And original research does not need to be removed without prejudice, citation templates can be inserted. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, understood. Unfortunately, that means that the entire strongly-worded first paragraph of WP:OR is a farce. Wikipedia does publish original research for as long as it takes for someone else to come along and annotate or edit it sufficiently so that it no longer qualifies as such—even if that never happens. I recommend that that paragraph be revised to say something like, "Original research is subject to editing and annotation so that it is no longer such" while leaving out the empty bluster. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article was previously speedy deleted as a copyright infringement as it was a direct cut and paste from here. This latest version is only mostly a cut and paste, but is still a breach of copyright. In the interests of helping the author who is clearly new to Wikipedia, I'll try giving it as rewrite over the course of the day, to fix the copyvio issue if not the other concerns. Euryalus (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is indeed original research. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is indeed "attributable to a reliable, published source". Juzhong (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and then turn it into an article about World Bank Disaster Risk Management in general. Juzhong (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea of original research is applied differently to highly reliable sources: for example, we accept what the United States Census Bureau has to say about census-designated places or minor civil divisions, both of which are terms created and used by the Census Bureau. Most biographies of members of the US Congress are based on their entries in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Unless we're going to argue that the World Bank is not a highly reliable source, I don't see why we should apply this any differently. Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A key component of "original research" involves researchers using Wikipedia as a platform for reporting their own findings/results for a particular project or study, in comparison with people writing general articles on a topic and basing their information on reports from third parties. You didn't indicate that the census or congressional articles you're talking about were written by the people at the Census Bureau or Congress who are themselves the originators of the information they're recording on Wikipedia. The issue is whether the Wikipedia article is itself original research. It's fine for the reliable sources to be original research as long as they are reliable, which is usually the case when they are the defining' resources for something or other, as in the case of Census Bureau terminology. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this enlightening discussion. It's given me a lot of insight into how wiki works, and I'd be happy to amend the text in the entry as appropriate. Could someone kindly let me know how I can get in touch with them to do this? Thanks in advance.Eapdrm (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2008 (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.