Talk:Architectural design values

[Ticket#2008051010007236] GNU Free Documentation License

Gender-based design values
"Gender-based design values"? Surely you jest. The section is muddled and gender doesn't even appear to be a relevant issue, per what the section's author details. (And really, how relevant is gender in relation to architectural style? Not relevant.) "Children, parents, and the elderly" do not a gender category make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.74.28.114 (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

IP 84.208.68.188 and Conflict of interest
This is not a copyright infringement as the copyright to this text and permit use is allowed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. [Ticket#2008051010007236] GNU Free Documentation License —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.68.188 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a close connection and have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. You should avoid:


 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just in case it becomes relevant again, as stated in the (now removed due to no concencus) proposal to delete the page, I think the article in its current state violates WP:SYN even if not a copyright violation. It advances an argument that is not seen it its sources. Miscreant (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_2 --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

2 June 2008
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
 * Architectural design values – Closure (no consensus) endorsed – King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * (restore&#124; cache &#124;AfD)
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * (restore&#124; cache &#124;AfD)

Fails No original research and WP:SYN. Also not discussed at the is the WP:COI of the user and the copy vios of previous attempts(Design values, Architectural intentions) to insert this content, and the failed DRV Deletion_review/Log/2008_April_23. Copy vios (http://www.aho.no/Utgivelser/Avhandlinger_elektronisk/Holm_Ideas_and_Beliefs.pdf and http://books.google.com/books?id=Gi7vcuGpAW8C ) Sole editor is Ivar Holm ( and ) with no other edits other than related to "his own work". Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought, nor is wikipedia to be used as Self-promotion. speedy delete Hu12 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure (no consensus). I see no process problems in this closure.  Given what was known and discussed at the time, a "no consensus" closure seems quite reasonable.  Furthermore, because this has been through an AfD discussion, it is ineligible for speedy-deletion.  The one exception is if the copyvio claim can be substantiated (in which case, the normal copyvio investigation takes precedence and no Deletion review is necessary).  I will note, however, that the copyvio allegation is unprovable by the link provided above. The important question, however, is why you didn't raise any of these issues during the deletion discussion?  Deletion Review is not AFD-round 2.  If you think critical facts were not considered, renominate the article and open a second discussion.  (You should, however, very clearly explain why you are doing so only 2 days after the last discussion was closed.  Other editors tend to be very skeptical of spuriously rapid renominations.)  The prior discussion participants do seem to have fairly considered and rejected the original research/synthesis claim.  Other than the copyvio claim, I don't see a basis to reconsider this decision.  Rossami (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse. No consensus to delete, a proper close. MrPrada (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. An initial comment on the possible copyvio issue. The talk page of the article claims that the source has a WP:OTRS ticket:
 * [Ticket#2008051010007236] GNU Free Documentation License
 * Unless that ticket fails to cover the source for the article then I am not seeing the copyvio. Smile a While (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The guy is citing his own Doctoral thesis, and using wikipedia as a web host. Just because he has Ticket#2008051010007236, doesn't give him a pass to add his own original research. --Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your position on this. However, the initial question is that of copyvio since if the article is copyvio it must be deleted irrespective of the OR position. You placed a couple of Copyviocore templates on the page so, I presume, you must have doubts about the validity or application of the OTRS ticket since otherwise there would be no copyvio and the tags would not be appropriate and should be removed. What I am asking for is a clarification of the basis for your concerns. Smile a While (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * we can;t speedy delete as OR, and the possible nature of the item as OR was covered in the AfD discussion. If someone should happen to write a review of a subject as part of a doctoral dissertation that is not OR, but source-based, and meets our other requirements, and is willing to release the copyright under GFDL, then I see no reason why we shouldn't use it.    DGG (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse Closure As has been said, DRV isn't AfD Part 2. This conversation has already occurred and a correct interpretation of the results was rendered.  Townlake (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure (no consensus). DRV is not AfD2.  Nothing wrong with the AfD close.  This is not the forum to debate a debatable copyright question.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse Close - there was no consensus for deletion. The fact that there are two "possible copyright infringement" templates currently on the article is irrelevant to this discussion (they must be dealt with separately). With the discussion in the AfD, there was no choice for the closing admin but to close without deletion. B.Wind (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Architectural design values. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724174839/http://www.aho.no/Global/Dokumenter/Forskning/Avhandlinger/Holm_Ideas_and_Beliefs.pdf to http://www.aho.no/Global/Dokumenter/Forskning/Avhandlinger/Holm_Ideas_and_Beliefs.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724174839/http://www.aho.no/Global/Dokumenter/Forskning/Avhandlinger/Holm_Ideas_and_Beliefs.pdf to http://www.aho.no/Global/Dokumenter/Forskning/Avhandlinger/Holm_Ideas_and_Beliefs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)