Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isochronia


 * 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   delete.  Sandstein  07:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Isochronia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is no such political system as the one described in this article. The word itself does not have a political definition. Either WP:MADEUP or WP:NEO would fit. Warrah (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC
 * Delete — Rather far-fetched. There is another article about Isocracy but it is only superficially related. Web search comes up with a medical condition of this name, but nothing political.  Favonian (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep .What do you mean, "there is no such political system". There are many other political systems mentioned (like anarchy, or many democratic variables) that do not exist in real life. Isochronia is one of the many possible political systems. This is how we called it in our school, I really wonder if there also another term used to describe the same system.. Of course it is also a medical term, this should be mentioned as disambiguation. Isocracy is not the same as Isochronia.Isochronia (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Anarchy has copious references documenting its notability; this article doesn't, and we haven't been able to locate any. And while we are at it: how come your user name is the same as that of the article?  Just curious.  Favonian (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you think the problem with Isochronia article is my nickname, the let me changed it, I don't mind. This is how we called this political system in my shcool, as far as I remember. The issue here is not to delete this possible political system, the issue is if there is another term describing this very political system, that is more appropriate. So this article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, but not deletion. Isochronia (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I put an Unreferenced tag, hoping a political science expert to arrive, and inform us if there is another more scholar term that is used to describe Isochronia in english. Isochronia (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete'. I can't find any reliable sources that demonstrate any use of this term defined as it is here, and thus it becomes original research.   Accounting4Taste: talk 19:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is not original research. I used the term used in my school, but it is possible that there is another term more appropriate Isochronia (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As above I cannot find any references to the term in this context. Seems to be dictionary definitions of the medical term. noq (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Google is not a reliable source, please dont use goggling in order to justify you view. I am sure my teacher could give you the references, but it is along time I left school and I dont remember them. Isochronia (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you claim is correct, then why you want to delete isochronia? In worst case it is a medical term, so the article must change in order to describe the term. Isochronia (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why are you trying to keep its current usage? You have failed to provide any references other than some vague 'I heard it in school' comment - see WP:V and WP:RS. You have already created a page for the medical term which may or may not survive - it is only a one line definition that would be better in wiktionary. noq (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:: I am not trying to keep its current usage. But this is how I remember this system were called. I created the article to get the attention of a political science expert, in order for him to confirm my claim or alternatively tell us which is the scholar term used. That is why I insist for this article to be kept, because I really want to discover if this is actually the correct scholar term, or not. Isochronia (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:VERIFY: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You can't create an article to find out whether what you're saying is correct or not, you're supposed to do that before you write the article. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I AM NOT SAYING THAT I AM NOT CORRECT. I am saying that I don't remember the reliable sources. This is not the same. Isochronia is not the only article in wikipedia that survives without having reliable sources mentioned. Similar to other articles, the policy is to wait until the reliable sources are discovered, or wait for an expert to arrive and confirm or reject the claim. You are not an expert are you? Isochronia (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now, this is where you are wrong. Have a look at WP:PROVEIT.  Favonian (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment::: You have so many unreferenced articles. If you think isochronia must be deleted, then why not for all  these articles also? Isochronia (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: Not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF.  Favonian (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: You don't seem to understand WP:OTHERSTUFF. This policy talks about pointing out an article on a similar subject that may exist or not, as an argument of deleting or keeping. My argument is not about a similar article that exists or not, which is the case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. I am talking about the lack of reliable source which is a common practice in many articles. Isochronia (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: The lack of reliable sources is not a deletion criterion. Isochronia (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Lack of reliable sources to establish notability is probably the most common reason for articles being deleted. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Now you changed your argument again, accusing me that I want to establish notability. As I said before, if my nickname is the problem, I will changed it immediately. In your case, accusing me that I want notability, is considered as bad faith, and this is also against wikipedia policy. Isochronia (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: Cassandra means notability of the subject of the article, documented by sources. No evidence, no article.  Favonian (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On what it concerns notability, the article is surely notable for political science, which investigates all possible forms of government, including of course isochronia. Isochronia (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: The lack of reliable sources is not a deletion criterion, is it? Isochronia (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. It really is the only deletion criterion. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PROVEIT: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Cassandra 73 (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is generally correct, but you know that for as many as more than 20000 articles in wikipedia, we are giving them the time for the reliable sources to be discovered, and we dont delete them immediately. Isochronia (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are the usual reasons for deletion:WP:DEL. Lack of notability figures prominently, if not exclusively. Favonian (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On what it concerns notability, the article is surely notable for political science, which investigates all possible forms of government, including of course isochronia. Isochronia (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No sources means no notability implies deletion. Favonian (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is generally correct, but for more than 20000 articles in wikipedia, we are giving them the time for the reliable sources to be discovered, and we dont delete them immediately Isochronia (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between an article being unreferenced and an article with no sources to be found. If you look up Achilles, you will find plenty of sources all over the place.  The problem with that article is that editors have not yet applied those sources to the information in the article.  But sources can easily be found.  If not even the editors can find a source for the topic, it should be deleted. 136.181.195.10 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Achilles is not unreferenced. Achilles is. And this unreferenced section stands since 2006! Of course you can find not only unreferenced sections, but also unreferenced whole articles, like Actium which is unreferenced since 2001, and none ever nominated it for deletion. Isochronia (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just found a reference for Actium . If someone had nominated it for deletion, someone else would probably have found this and others by checking the google links on the AFD which would have let to a keep outcome. Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I know that Actium exists, actually I live nearby Actium. But it was unreferenced since 2001, until you discovered a reliable source about it. Why not giving the same time grace to isochronia? I can point many unreferenced articles having reliable sources very difficult to be discovered by non experts (like us). But they still exist as articles. Why not giving the same grace to isochronia? If you ask my personal opinion, isochronia term is as reliable as Actium is.Isochronia (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "grace", it just passed unnoticed for a long time and given how easily I found sources I doubt if anyone else tried in that time. There probably are other articles which don't have sources, but sources probably could be found if someone looked which would prevent the article actually being deleted if it ever got to AFD. The point here is that we've looked for sources for this article and can't find any. Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is correct, but I still believe that we have to wait for a PoliSci expert to arrive and express her/his opinion about isochronia. You are not expert in PoliSci, so please dont express so easily your opinion about everything, especially in deletion issues. Isochronia (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No we don't, there's no policy that says deletions have to be assessed by an expert in the subject. Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. WP is a general encyclopedia, not one of PoliSci, so not every topic useful for a field is notable here.  Nor are we meant to list everything new. Impossible to verify as a political term, this is in fact a term used in medicine. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument sound reasonable. But I am asking grace for isochronia (similar to the grace you are showing for so many other articles) in order for me to search and discover reliable sources. Or alternatively me or some PoliSci expert discover the alternative PoliSci scholar term that is used for that type of government. Isochronia (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the "grace we are showing for so many other articles"; someone took the time and trouble to submit this for an articles for deletion process, rather than simply asking for its speedy deletion. That means that you have about six more days to "search and discover reliable sources" and add them to the article; that's the grace period that this process is designed to offer, and it is the maximum amount that can be had.  Rather than try to change Wikipedia policy single-handed and based on six hours' experience with how things work around here, why not use your time to find references and provide them? Nothing else is likely to change anyone's mind, and providing reliable sources certainly will.  Accounting4Taste: talk 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not the place to promote your theories. Edward321 (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Why is this not deleted yet? Near as I can tell, it should have been speedied.  No such thing.  Newt  (winkle) 20:16, 20 November 2009 (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.