| Revision as of 14:06, 5 April 2009 editUncle G (talk | contribs)Administrators52,482 edits There is no reason supported by policy for deleting this.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:24, 5 April 2009 edit undoOliverTwisted (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,255 editsm →Source Credibility: what happened to being civil?Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| *'''Delete'''--and may it snow soon. ] (]) 04:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''--and may it snow soon. ] (]) 04:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *It's a shame that none of you read the article, because it makes the very point that I'm about to make.<p>The ''only reasons'' that you think that this is an essay, or original research, is that it used Harvard referencing (a ''perfectly valid referencing style for a Misplaced Pages article''), repeated its title in the article body, and didn't use the correct markup. ''The fact that it was unwikified entirely slewed your opinions'', and those opinions have no basis in policy whatsoever.<p>You should have read the article properly, ignoring (or — better yet! — fixing) the cleanup issues. Had you done so, you'd have found a source cited for every single point in the article, and that these sources were things like Dr. Chanthika Pornpitakpan, a professor at the ], writing in the ''Journal of Applied Social Psychology''. This isn't a Misplaced Pages editor writing up previously unpublished ideas directly in Wikpiedia, which is what ''actually would be'' covered by the original research policy here. This is a Misplaced Pages editor writing content entirely based upon reliable sources ''and citing those sources in full''. We could hardly ask for better (except that it be properly wikified).<p>The irony here is so thick as to be almost tangible. This is a perfectly valid subject, as documented in many places such as pages 286 et seq. of ISBN 9780765613158 (q.v.), and an article whose only faults are being in need of cleanup and expansion, which ''actually explains that people favour presentation over substance''. There is no reason supported by ] for deleting this. '''Keep'''. ] (]) 14:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | *It's a shame that none of you read the article, because it makes the very point that I'm about to make.<p>The ''only reasons'' that you think that this is an essay, or original research, is that it used Harvard referencing (a ''perfectly valid referencing style for a Misplaced Pages article''), repeated its title in the article body, and didn't use the correct markup. ''The fact that it was unwikified entirely slewed your opinions'', and those opinions have no basis in policy whatsoever.<p>You should have read the article properly, ignoring (or — better yet! — fixing) the cleanup issues. Had you done so, you'd have found a source cited for every single point in the article, and that these sources were things like Dr. Chanthika Pornpitakpan, a professor at the ], writing in the ''Journal of Applied Social Psychology''. This isn't a Misplaced Pages editor writing up previously unpublished ideas directly in Wikpiedia, which is what ''actually would be'' covered by the original research policy here. This is a Misplaced Pages editor writing content entirely based upon reliable sources ''and citing those sources in full''. We could hardly ask for better (except that it be properly wikified).<p>The irony here is so thick as to be almost tangible. This is a perfectly valid subject, as documented in many places such as pages 286 et seq. of ISBN 9780765613158 (q.v.), and an article whose only faults are being in need of cleanup and expansion, which ''actually explains that people favour presentation over substance''. There is no reason supported by ] for deleting this. '''Keep'''. ] (]) 14:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :This is a discussion board. No one has committed a cardinal sin by having a debate on the notability of an article as it was initially presented. Please refrain from explaining our reasons to us, as in "The only reasons that you think that this is an essay, or original research, is that it used Harvard referencing..." Also, I did actually read the article. My interpretation of what was presented was clearly different from yours. It isn't really fair to target people in such an aggressive manner for trying to apply standards to the thousands of new articles that flood wikipedia. A vote with an explanation might suffice next time. --]<b><i>]</i></b><sup>]</sup>] 14:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:24, 5 April 2009
Source Credibility
- Source Credibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Essay / original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like an essay someone did for school. --Pstanton (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: As original research. --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 02:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete--and may it snow soon. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's a shame that none of you read the article, because it makes the very point that I'm about to make.
The only reasons that you think that this is an essay, or original research, is that it used Harvard referencing (a perfectly valid referencing style for a Misplaced Pages article), repeated its title in the article body, and didn't use the correct markup. The fact that it was unwikified entirely slewed your opinions, and those opinions have no basis in policy whatsoever.
You should have read the article properly, ignoring (or — better yet! — fixing) the cleanup issues. Had you done so, you'd have found a source cited for every single point in the article, and that these sources were things like Dr. Chanthika Pornpitakpan, a professor at the University of Macau, writing in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. This isn't a Misplaced Pages editor writing up previously unpublished ideas directly in Wikpiedia, which is what actually would be covered by the original research policy here. This is a Misplaced Pages editor writing content entirely based upon reliable sources and citing those sources in full. We could hardly ask for better (except that it be properly wikified).
The irony here is so thick as to be almost tangible. This is a perfectly valid subject, as documented in many places such as pages 286 et seq. of ISBN 9780765613158 (q.v.), and an article whose only faults are being in need of cleanup and expansion, which actually explains that people favour presentation over substance. There is no reason supported by deletion policy for deleting this. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is a discussion board. No one has committed a cardinal sin by having a debate on the notability of an article as it was initially presented. Please refrain from explaining our reasons to us, as in "The only reasons that you think that this is an essay, or original research, is that it used Harvard referencing..." Also, I did actually read the article. My interpretation of what was presented was clearly different from yours. It isn't really fair to target people in such an aggressive manner for trying to apply standards to the thousands of new articles that flood wikipedia. A vote with an explanation might suffice next time. --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 14:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)