Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 27 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SCZenz (talk | contribs) at 07:47, 28 June 2006 (→[]: reply to NeoChaosX, and comment for Michaelch7). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:47, 28 June 2006 by SCZenz (talk | contribs) (→[]: reply to NeoChaosX, and comment for Michaelch7)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

June 27 2006

California State Normal School

Where is the California State Normal School article? This is an important part of California history. Who deleted it and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelch7 (talk • contribs)

  • It was redirected to California State University. -- SCZenz 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As SCZenz said, this page was never deleted. The history of the page is intact. If you agree with the redirect, you can merge any relevant content from the history into the target page. Looking at the respective versions, that seems reasonable to me. The CSU page could use expansion and this would seem to be an appropriate history section. If you want to dispute the decision to redirect this page and to keep it as an independent article, you should raise that suggestion on the respective article Talk pages. Redirects are not the same as deletions. Rossami (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I redirected the article since much of it's content was basically a more drawn out version of the History section of the California State article. Since the the Normal School eventually became the CSU system, their histories are one in the same and thus the CSNS article is redundant. NeoChaosX 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a fair point. Michaelch7, if you're still concerned, you can always merge facts from the CSNS article into the History section of the CSU article, if you think they're missing. -- SCZenz 07:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesse B. Davis

Why is Jesse B. Davis deleted??? I requested that Calvin Tuteao be deleted. The deletion was removed. Why is there a double standard? Are actors more important than educators?whicky1978 19:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The IMDb page link asserts the notability of the actor, and thus it didn't qualify as speedable. The Jesse B. Davis article was a one-sentence stub that had no assertion of notability. Hbdragon88 21:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was the one who tagged Davis for deletion as he only returned a relative handfull of Google hits and, according to record, was previously deleted. I've read over what you posted on my talk page and left you some advice towards further action. אמר Steve Caruso(desk/poll) 22:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What is notablility? And how do you determine it? Why the need for an internet source? Doesn't IMDB work like a wiki?
    The first sentence does give Jessee B. Davis notability. He is noted for being the first person to implement a school counseling program. He was a forunner of school counseling and guidance. You are confusing popularity with notability. And I see the article was deleted without discussion. whicky1978 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the first version (created and deleted on 26 June) was speedy-deletable as an example of an unsourced "Joe is great" article. We, unfortunately, get an astounding number of those kind of articles and have been forced to set a fairly high trigger on such biographies, otherwise we would be inundated with all the junk. The claim that "XXX is probably the first to implement yyy" is a very weak assertion of the person's ability to meet our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Given the massive problems we have with true junk, I can not dispute the deleting admin's decision based on the evidence available at the time. False positives are always unfortunate but often inevitable.
    24 hours later, you recreated the article and this time added a single paper-only reference. You may be well-intentioned, but this is a tactic often used by vandals so it's not surprising that the edit was met with some skepticism.
    My own research {google search) shows that there was a Jesse B Davis who was the second president of the National Career Development Association (1914-16), indicating that the claim is plausible. The name shows up again in someone's class notes in a relevant context - not a reliable source but it substantiates the plausibility of the claim. The name shows up again in a Professional School Counseling Journal article - again, in a context that is plausible to the claim. Taken together, I think there is grounds to overturn the speedy-deletion but with the reservation that if the article is not significantly expanded and sourced within a reasonable period of time, an AFD nomination may become appropriate. Rossami (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WHAT ABOUT THIS? This would not qualify has a stub. It has seven sentences.whicky1978 05:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is not much more than what I put in the draft. What about an article titled, History of Vocational Guidance or something similar?whicky1978 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainty principle

Proponents say:

  • The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof is available for everybody.
  • It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
  • Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really no objections.)
  • If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously.
  • The question of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

Opponents say/said:

  • Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
  • The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

New facts. When we had the previous vote, it was suggested to wait until the idea reaches somebody else. Now, after many debates, studying WP history pages, and talking to "real" people we have proofs for that:

  • The first version of the article was originally created by Slicky (S. Lorenz, an Austrian specialist in quantum mechanics and molecular biology. He cannot be a sockpuppet of Arbatsky: see what he wrote on his user page in 2004.)
  • A. Kleyn, an American specialist in general relativity, agreed to publicly support the certainty principle and creation of the article for it. Those, who have doubts, may ask him: e-mail is present on his site.
  • Interesting opinion of Linas (L. Vepstas, an American mathematician) deserves to be mentioned. After studying the papers of Arbatsky, he found that "Clearly Arbatsky understands the basics of Hilbert spaces" and "Its a fairly trivial manipulation that has none-the-less interesting result". But Linas believes that that result must be known long time ago. In particular, the theorem about the certainty principle, being applied to the whole Poincare group, gives inequality (see the last inequality in the table) which Linas calls "golden truth" for "physicists working in relativistic quantum field theory". And Linas believes that it is present in standard textbooks on QFT. But that is wrong! I suggest all physicists, who read this, open their books on QFT and confirm that this Golden Truth is absent there. Rcq 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Undelete. Rcq 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: All of the sockpuppets have been indef. blocked. All of them had their first edits on June 14 and then no others until today. Any more sockpuppets who come here to vote, will also get blocked. User:Zoe| 02:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages is not a venue for negotiating ultimate truth and therefore endorse deletion. The authors may be right. They may be wrong. However, Misplaced Pages is a reporter of already-discussed, already settled facts from other people. If the subject is still so hot as to have fights over it, we can have an article about the fight (if it rises to the level of being discussed by other people, first), but not the disputed math/science. Still, none of this is to the point. The AfD was settled according to rule, and the previous DRV was unanimous. Please only raise this again if new facts about the deletion procedure, not the deletion's justice, emerge. Geogre 03:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and the term "certainty principle" is not the sole name of this...thing. It's a term that has been in use since the 17th century for a variety of things, including the science of probability and statistics. There is a very nice book about Leibnizian probability and theodicy in the late 17th century. Geogre 03:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 27 Add topic