Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilemma of determinism (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. This AfD is a disaster. No prejudice toward a quick renomination with input from additional experienced editors/relevant WikiProjects. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

On another look, it seems that not much has changed since the previous AfD and subsequent DRV both yielded a consensus to delete the article. I normally don't like to delete pages on CSD G4 premises after full (and extended) deletion discussions, but given that the page was reinstated by a now-blocked sock, I'm deleting this once again. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Dilemma of determinism
AfDs for this article: 
 * - ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previous AFD determined that it should be deleted. No substantial changes have been made and the original reasons stand. -- Snowded TALK
 * Strong KEEP the article on Wiki. The accusations are false because -- as it is proved in "History of the argument", last paragraph but one -- 9 scholars in their books use precisely this term "Dilemma of determinism" as the name of precisely such distinguished argument as described in the article. Either most or all of them are professors of philosophy, often in reputable universities. Further 17 scholars (as mentioned in the article: Views + Kaufman mentioned in History) mention the argument in this exact form but under possibly other names, often containing the word 'Dilemma' (e.g.: "Dilemma of moral responsibility," or "Libertarian dilemma"). Zaratustra (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I identified the following 8 professors using precisely this name, "the dilemma of determinism", as the name for a distinguished argument (see footnotes in the last but one par. in History): Fischer (Univ. of California, Riverside), Russell (Univ. of British Columbia, of Gothenburg, amongst others), Shafer-Landau (Univ. of North Carolina, of Kansas, of Wisconsin), Fabio Bacchini (Univ. of Sassari), Massimo Dell'Utri (Sassari), John Lemos (Coe College), Kelly G. Shaver (College of Charleston) known for research in the field of moral &amp; social psychology, R. Srikanth (Poornaprajna, in India; he also mentions "standard modern argument against free will" as the name). Doyle's name "the standard argument against free will" is also supported by Dr. Peter Clark (click to see) and probably some others. Zaratustra (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All discussed last time round. The term is used, the term is in other articles that does not of itself justify a whole article replicated material better covered elsewhere  Snowded  TALK 19:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which concrete point of Deletion policy would justify the deletion? (If you agree there are sources then only Content forking would sound appropriate at first moment, but then it turns out it's about 2 articles on the same topic. Either one is a "copy" of the other, perhaps written in other words, or one is a version of the other following some specific views. But instead, at present there is no article or even a header within an article talking on that specific argument against free will other than Dilemma of determinism. So it seems NO acceptable reason in Deletion policy can justify such deletion of content.) Zaratustra (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * WEAK DELETE. - I have read the previous AfD and the arguments given therein, yet I do not believe it to be a walled garden topic. There exists such a philosophical term as per the ) hits, which is not fully covered in determinism. I have seen worse. Still, it contains too much WP:NOR and is simply too badly written. If the article was shortened and the quotes pruned, I would change my vote to Weak Keep. I am also worried by the likely sock puppetry of the pro-keep editors. Zezen (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP - I have read the reasons to delete this topic, and I haven't yet found one to be satisfactory. It doesn't matter if it is in other places, you still should define Matter in a Scientific Dictionary even if it is mentioned elsewhere in the dictionary and the definition to the term is elsewhere. The same is true with this Philosophy topic as far as I know. It shouldn't matter if the article was badly written, because if so then it should just be edited, not deleted. Owlcool  TALK 10:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You inserted your vote within the strike so I changed this. However this appears to be your only contribution to wikipedia .... Snowded  TALK 17:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * DELETE per nomination.  The topic is legitimate and if it expands on another article to the point where a separate one is needed fine.  For the moment this is just a coatrack for material contested elsewhere and per Zezen there is some pretty obvious sock or meat puppetry here.   The original article was part of a long running issue which resulted in a community ban for the involved editor.  I will just add (for any reviewing admin) that Turrp is a newly created editor just to reinstate this article and that Zarathustra had one batch of editing on on free will article in June (around 8 edits) and now the same on this article otherwise nothing,  So both Single purpose accounts   Snowded  TALK 05:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You must understand that now you do present ill will on the topic – "ill" meaning here fighting free knowledge. Every topic that is present in academic writings as a separate term, likely deserves an article on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the argument that "it is [at the moment] described elsewhere" is one of worst possible demagogies, as the contents of articles (e.g. Determinism) is fluctuating all the time, and in this specific case there is not even a single header within even a single article that would be devoted just to this particular argument. (It might be mentioned in single sentences but never highlighted in structure of articles, thus it can disappear any time). Knowledge about it is not safeguarded when a separate article is not there and that is, obviously, against free knowledge. Zaratustra (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool it and try and address content issues. Look to improve the entry on another article for this and if it grows then maybe a unique one is needed.  Content is safeguarded if editors achieve consensus it is not more protected in a separate article.   Snowded  TALK 16:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Snowded's vote is a duplicate vote. Snowded's nomination is their vote.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Haven't made up my mind on this one, but three quick comments about above !votes. I think you'll need to do more than show use of the term to convince people. To what extent is this a distinct topic that couldn't/shouldn't be covered in one of the other existing articles?  Per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, If the article was shortened and the quotes pruned, I would change my vote to Week keep means you should really be !voting weak keep to begin with (i.e. if the topic is notable and there's a workable article hiding inside the current article, that's all that matters).  I do remember Cmsreview and his articles, but where did you see a ban? He has no block log and no mention of it on his talk page. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 12:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem was with this editor over a range of article, this was just one. The pattern, when material was rejected on other articles, was to create a new article with the disputed material and then claim it as the default text.  Snowded  TALK 12:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree and confirm that this was the pattern of the problem editor in my view also. It is a big distraction for WP now to have to deal with all this fringe, irrelevant stuff that was added by one editor, following the pattern described by Snowded above. warshy (YENYEN) 14:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * DELETE per nomination. This is all fringe, really irrelevant stuff in my view. A big distraction for WP to have to deal with this. warshy (YENYEN)
 * Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep (the article on Wikipedia). Turrp (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Per comments above.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A third brand new editor I see ...  Snowded  TALK 17:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone considers me brand new.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies when I did a search earlier it only came up with around 12 edits in unrelated fields in October. Just done it again and you are right, may have been a rendering issue on a slow internet connection  Snowded  TALK 17:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. @Rhododendrites: actually, I believe Wikipedia must be objective in the sense that it ought to just mirror the current state of academic and popular knowledge instead of being a judge over it. If more and more experts or scholars use a term as a distinguished topic, there should be a guaranteed place for its definition/explanation. Piotrniz (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ( My point is there where you say "use a term as a distinguished topic". That they're using the term doesn't mean it's a distinguished topic. People might use the same term to talk about the same thing without ever saying it's the same thing -- that's where it's up to us to look around at other Wikipedia articles and say "do we already cover this topic under a different name?" It's not about determining what's an important topic, but what's [substantially] the same topic. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly concur with Rhododendrites. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 16:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "That they're using the term doesn't mean it's a distinguished topic" -- and here I disagree. The term has a meaning, the meaning is "something," so in any case a topic for explanation or discussion; thus distinguished term => distinguished topic. It's that simple. Besides, this dichotomic argument is not brought to attention anywhere else on Wikipedia, not at all (and in particular, not in a manner that would guarantee its existence, e.g. as a separate section); so this is a falsification of the current science of Philosophy on the field of free will. Intellectual honesty is all one needs to see it. The very assertion that 1 necessity and chance are excluding each other and 2 they're the only options is the core of this argument called the D. of D. and this assertion is NOT covered elsewhere in a wikilinkable manner or any other. Can you demonstrate an example to the contrary? Piotrniz (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The term has a meaning - Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. Perhaps it would make sense to add to Wiktionary, but Wikipedia covers concepts/subjects, for which there can be many terms, terms for variations, terms for sub-topics, etc. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 20:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Dictionaries contain single words, encyclopedias often conjunctions of words or even single-word terms, BUT used mainly in science. Apart from that, it is similar in the sense that it's a scientific dictionary which, at the same time, expands its explanations often beyond definitions. Obviously it should contain definitions just as dictionaries do - and often something more. Whereas your approach ignores even this very basic function of being a dictionary of science. Piotrniz (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, but please someone with an actual background in philosophy (I am not that person, philosophy makes my eyes cross) rewrite it so it's not just a list of viewpoints. It's an article in need of clarification, not deletion.  The Rev (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you check it out, those of us with a background in Philosophy are voting (again) for delete as the material is already in other articles. This is just a coat rack for material rejected there Snowded  TALK 06:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What other voters backgrounds are is not always immediately evident, and how they vote is their business, not mine. However, I looked at the Free will page and so noted that essentially these points were there.  I therefore change my position to No Vote, and have struck my above 'Keep'.  The information is out there, and in a more relevant format.  The Rev (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for others. Deletion was favored in the last AfD and in a deletion review (Deletion review/Log/2015 May 28) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppets
Two contributing editors have just been blocked as socks. I have struck their comments, can we now please restore the deletion. One other (Piotrniz) was previously blocked for socking and canvassing on this subject. Check user shows no direct connection with the current two so thinking about it I removed the strike. But overall it illustrates the problem with this subject. Snowded TALK 06:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you know 2 accounts are clones of 1 person? It is impossible to know. People use Internet under NAT (Network Address Translation) so that 1 IP is used by several. Simultanous use of Wikipedia through such network is also possible in such configuration. I see no reason why you removed both votes and not just 1. And with regard to your question, you've got my disagreement and of 2-3 other voters. Piotrniz (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that how you are trying to stack the cards? Check the link, check user has proved sock puppets and two of the editors above have been blocked, just as you were in association with this subject before.  Your comments above indicate that you may well be associated with the two socks.  Snowded  TALK 20:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, how on Earth can one prove, without seeing the perpetrator do the thing, that two accounts on 1 IP, maybe even with the same brand and version of webbrowser, belong to one person and not two, if they can live in one house under one netadmin who allocates the same external IP to both? It's quite a common thing. You can block them anyway, due to distrust, bans have their expiration time and are not like death, but using such just probabilistic judgment to solve important discussion and voting is dishonest until true proofs are brought, not just the use of same IP. Have you perhaps interrogated the 2 within these 12 hours before the end of "sockpuppet investigation"?... Still, if basing on WP rules you just say that there must be just 1 acct on 1 IP, then 1 vote is lost because that netuser was an abuser who exceeded the limit. But how is the first one guilty if they could know nothing about the other?? So, at best, you could disqualify 1 vote but not 2. Then you have 3 votes strongly against deletion (perhaps 4 different people) and you have some rules which don't give a reason for deletion. Decide with helpful admins as to what to do, but everoyone sees the abuse of power. Piotrniz (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As i say look at the link to the sock puppet report, Both editors have been permanently blocked from editing wikipedia so both their votes are deleted.  Wikipedia has a process for this and its been followed.  If you disagree with it take it elsewhere.   Frankly I'm amazed your block for sock puppetry and canvassing wasn't permanent as well.   Snowded  TALK 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Still, in no way you negate what I said: that it's dishonest to say somebody is "for sure" just an alter-ego of somebody else, in such a virtual project (cf.: hacks etc.). That's the only thing I want to stress here for this occasion -- so that people in the future can see that dishonesty was used to win &amp; hide this topic -- and not some "morally justifiable" methods. For me this is EOT. Piotrniz (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is wikipedia policy so stop accusing other editors of being dishonest - you should also sign your comments on free will rather than using an IP address as well by the way.  Given we are into honesty would you confirm you have had no connection (canvassing or otherwise) with either of the two banned editors?  Snowded  TALK 21:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.