Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International definition

International definition
Just calling something international doesn't make it notable. No mention of the tv programme on IMDB. --fvw *  21:59, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly original research, insufficient evidence of peer review. Wyss 22:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't seem notable and gets 1 unique Google hit. [[User:David_Johnson|David Johnson [ T|C ] ]] 23:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sounds like local access cable. At any rate, I wonder if "Supernerd" is one of the types.  No evidence that he is an anthropologist, only that he has done "anthropological research."  Geogre 01:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not so fast, please: Don't delete. The point made above about peer review is especially interesting (perhaps any deficiency in peer review should be mentioned in an article, if we keep it), but I would not want to be too hasty to delete an entry on the "insufficient evidence of peer review" ground alone, as some knowledge-seekers who work outside the mainstream have interesting insights. As it turns out, Mr. Freelain has over the past several years presented his theories and findings at several academic institutions in the Washington DC area (Maryland and Virginia); I think his forthcoming book is basically self-published and I don't think he is on the payroll of an institution of higher education. I'm not sure what his formal credentials are, but I doubt whether he holds an advanced anthropology degree. But does the lack of an advanced anthropology degree disqualify any entry that outlines the method and discipline he developed? Some of his academic presentations have been deemed provocative by senior scientific faculty (including some who have expressed a degree of scepticism about some mathematical aspects of Mr. Freelain's methodology); some of his university presentations have been videotaped and are among the taped material regularly shown on cable public access in the DC area, on the program produced by Mr. Freelain. Cable TV viewership numbers in Montgomery County, DC, Prince George's County, and Northern Virginia are said to be not insignificant. If I understand Mr. Freelain's approach, he has developed a unique theoretical framework, but it also appears that his central theories are not inconsistent with current discussions elaborating the Ashley Montague theme of "race as a social construct." In one provocative essay, Mr. Freelain suggests that "racism" is a term that properly applies to any theory (political, social, anthropological, or biological) that accepts the notion of "race" uncritically. I do agree with the comment that the phrase "international definition" sounds a bit pretentious, but this happens to be the term Mr. Freelain uses. I don't suppose it's much sillier than C.S. Peirce coming up with "pragmaticism." I don't necessarily agree with the method or all the conclusions of the "international definition" approach, but I think Wikipedia should be open enough to consider including a brief entry about Mr. Freelain's work on this, which seems notable regardless of its ultimate scientific merit. I'm still learning about the criteria for inclusion/deletion, so it might be that I don't yet understand how the lines are drawn. I guess I imagine that the Wikipedia philosophy encourages critical analysis rather than a "Wissenschaftpolizei" approach. I made up that German word to be humorous, so please understand that I'm not intending to call anyone a name. Is there some other Wikiplace such an entry mightmore appropriately belong? 151.200.39.87 06:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take an account, move it to your user page, and plan on restoring it once the actual book is out from a respectable press and you can cite that. Meanwhile, delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:31, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm abstaining, but User:151.200.39.87 might be interested to know that the word is "Wissenschaftspolizei" (note the additional "s") ("Science Police", for you non-German speakers), which I think I will start using if I can figure out a good context. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The theory is original research, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia, not to mention the fact that this book and TV series have not yet been released and therefore are not notable. Katefan0 14:06, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Question-- ORIGINAL RESEARCH: Based on my reading of the Wikipedia rationale concerning the inappropriateness of original research, I thought Wikipedia's disfavoring of "original research" was designed to protect this encyclopedia from being misused as a forum to publish the protocols, methods, data sets, full-text analyses, etc., of original research or original theoretical essays as PRIMARY DOCUMENTS. I didn't think the point was that Wikipedia is forbidden from including an article that mentions or identifies a new idea or a new application of an old idea. I am also curious about whether it is consistent with Wikipedia philsophy to use the notion of RESPECTABLE PRESS as an exclusionary gatekeeper. Also, I'm wondering whether a televesion program that has been regularly disseminated on public access cable television should be considered "not released." I'm raising these questions in good faith, and in hopes of being educated about this. 160.253.0.248 20:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Here's another way to look at the discouragement of "original research." An encyclopedia is a place to learn more about things you have heard or read about elsewhere, not a place to introduce novel ideas. Since there is currently no literature on the topic, it hasn't really been introduced yet.  It's not a judgment call on the validity of the idea, just that there really isn't enough information available to the public to describe it objectively. iMeowbot 23:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)