Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protonism


 * 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. Discounting the numerous sockpuppets and SPAs, there is a clear consensus that this does not meet the notability requirement. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Protonism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a non-notable literary theory, as any Google Book, Google News, or JSTOR/MLA search easily verified. The only references are the author's book and a few newspaper articles from an Albanian newspaper, whose reliability on local news is probably without par, but whose authority in matters of literature and philosophy is not established. The External links section looks impressive, but look carefully--there are no reliable sources there, only blogs and other short, non-notable articles. Besides notability, the article seems a pretty clear attempt to publicize the author, whose own article was recently trimmed drastically to remove puffery. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete eminently "not notable" philosophy propounded by a likely non-notable author. At length. Collect (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vehicle for the promotion of Gjekë Marinaj.  Assuming that he himself meets notability standards ( I'm uncertain, but a cursory examination suggests maybe so about which I am increasingly doubtful), any discussion of his work belongs in his article -- although I'd stress that such a discussion should by no means be this lengthy; I think a claim could be made that this protonism article is unambiguous promotion (which need not be commercial). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete Unknown theory? Wiki, Facebook, and Pragmatism were unknown at some point. It seems to me that this proposal is unconstructive and goes against what Wikipedia is all about. If this article is being considered for deletion, then we have to redefine the mission of Wikipedia. Very unfair proposal! Frank Williams, Boston  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festes (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete I give up. This person is determined to destroy four great Wiki articles. He has already demolished http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjek%C3%AB_Marinaj, made unfair changes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanians and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_American and now proposes Protonism page for deletion. Here are some of the IP addresses he/she used prior to utilizing the username, Drmies, and you be the judge: Drmies 37.17.252.233; 178.132.251.3; 37.17.252.202; 37.17.252.200; 178.132.251.3 It is obvious that he does not understand what Protonism theory adds to the humanities. Should one person have the power to demolish four wiki articles just because an Albanian-American is a very promising figure in literary theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnspring (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete. I am the author of the article and am not affiliated with Gjekë Marinaj in any way. The criticism of drmies is unfounded and unfair for the following reasons: 1) Protonism is a very new critical theory as of this writing, but it is already being discussed in academia across the world as I have been able to back up with research. Because it is a new theory, I draw largely upon Marinaj's book on Protonism because there are not yet other books written on it, only articles in scholarly journals. The footnotes are not redundant, and I will add specific page numbers in my references to prove it. All of my other sources can easily be found in respectable publications by following the URLs. Where the criticism of my references are concerned, I strongly suspect that my critic drmies does not read Albanian, because anyone who can would know that my references are sound. 2) My critic drmies denounced the article as "self-promotion" by attacking  the credibality of Gjekë Marinaj, stating that he claims to have been awared a literary prize that does not exist. Nowhere does my article refer to Gjekë Marinaj as having been awarded a prize.  Gjekë Marinaj  was awarded the Albanian BookerMan prize, but his Wikipedia page was vandalized by someone who changed the name of the prize to the non-existant Man Booker.  3) Speaking of vandalism, if you look on the talk page, you will see criticism from a user whose name is given as IP address 76.227.109.191. Research has shown that this IP and my critic drmies are one and the same. He has hidden behind the folowing IP addresses before he used his drmies user ID: 37.17.252.233, 178.132.251.3, 37.17.252.202, 37.17.252.200, and 178.132.251.3. His behavior shows him to be, in all reality,a vandal determined to destroy an acceptable Wikipedia page. 3) Deleting this as non-notable does not make sense either, because Wikipedia itself started as a non-notable entity publishing the non-notable. If Wikipedia administration decideds to delete my article with it being as well-referenced as it is, then it will surely have to delete the majority of the articles on it's database as they are not nearly as well-referenced as mine is. 4) This article is only two weeks old as of this writing. I am still in the process of adding and refining my references (like adding specific page numbers as I mentioned above). It deserves a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.109.191 (talk • contribs)  — 76.227.109.191 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please provide references to scholarly journals. You can include them in the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, an inflated spam article, the gift that keeps on giving. I'll not comment on the spurious accusations as socking, only to point out that this is funny considering the results of Sockpuppet investigations/Festes. The IP may well be the author, and so are Festes and Johnspring, and a couple of others. Oh, I'm a literary critic by profession. I'll propose Protonism at the next Critical Studies reading group and we'll see how it flies. It might be the first time someone not associated with it talks about it. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO and WP:FRINGE. I found ZERO Google scholar or Gnews links.  The only book references I found relate to protons in physics. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete I smell a rat here, and stand in solidarity with Festes, Johnspring, and the author of the article. It is a disgrace that we have to do this to protect the existence of a perfectly legitimate Wikipedia article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueink500 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt you "stand in solidarity" with Festes and Johnspring... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As soon as an admin walks by that SPI it'll be the end of the socking, and the closing admin will see what's going on with these votes, which is why I haven't bothered indenting them. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, Scottywong just brought the hammer down. Things will be quieter now. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – I agree this WP:FRINGE and WP:NEO concept fails under WP:GNG; that's not to say other fringe theories don't have their place. This one just isn't notable in any way. Here, I agree with Collect and Drmies. JFHJr (㊟) 02:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is promotional blather from somebody hoping to sell more books. Not notable. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete I read the original version of the article about the author of "Protonism" some time ago, and the "Protonism" article recently. Reviewing the changes to the article on the author gives me pause.  It seems important to recognize, 1) That a fact can reflect well on an author and still be objective; 2) Discussions of subjective motives can be valid in an article if objectively substantiated (as in that article's discussion of the author's well-document reasons for leaving his birth country, which is key to many people's understanding of his identity as a poet); 3) Material sourced from languages other than English may reasonably possess objective validity at least equivalent to that of an English-language source; 4) Emerging ideas deserve "open source" reference forums for the sake of the ideas themselves.  Certain participants here have declared themselves interested in refining the material on this school of thought, whose merits and influence have been acknowledged on a national level in at least one nation, and plausibly others.  Constructive refinement related to the ideas themselves would surely be welcome, as there seems to be leeway to approach a number of articles more sensitively, aiming for a standard of internationalism rather than cultural paternalism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanteith (talk • contribs) 03:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cultural paternalism? Hmm. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I have traveled with Marinaj in the Balkans. He is obviously one of the most important literary figures not just in Albania but the surrounding nations.  His theory of criticism is known to his many followers and is an influential factor in the region's attempt to overcome old political and ethnic feuds through a literary meeting of the minds. Frederick Turner  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.162.167 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – "I like it" aside, I'll point out there's an article about Frederick Turner (poet), and that authors there have a considerable overlap with Protonism and Gjekë Marinaj as well as a predilection for socking. I don't think the above vote is well reasoned or very detached. JFHJr (㊟) 05:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw this advertised at WikiProject Chemistry. I'm a bit confused.  I definitiely believe in protons, and can't imagine how anyone might not, but I don't understand the article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete Protonism in this part of the world is a most talked-about topic. The feeling of most people is that, if we were to follow a method that Protonism discourages and give scathing critiques based on our personal tastes and biased opinions, we could hinder the progress of literature today. Focusing on the bad in literary critique is a way to discourage the up-and-coming writers and potentially keep them from pushing forward and going on to create better works. Just as with sports, music, and many other skills, writing is developed through hours of practice, continually finding better ways to frame ideas into words. In contemporary America, much of the practice gets published, whether on blogs, in e-books, or in countless free journals, magazines, and newspapers. We need to be gentle toward writers and give critique that will build them up as they learn what works. Encouraging up-and-coming writers through focusing on the positive aspects of their writing is the best way to develop them to their full potential. I would be very disappointed if you decide to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benico (talk • contribs) 22:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "A most talked-about topic"--prove it please. We are not here to promote someone's literary theories. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear all, Many thanks for your good discussions. It’s a pleasure to make your acquaintance, and to get a chance to thank each and every one of you for your kind services toward Protonism. I find your criticism carefully considered and meant to be helpful. In addition, I greatly appreciate the invitation by some of my supporters to take part in this ongoing discussion. Unfortunately, you are catching me at a particularly crazy time, and I recently made a vow to myself to decline all such participations for the foreseeable future, in order to concentrate myself on a very demanding dissertation project which I plan to defend this coming summer. I really regret losing this chance to share my thoughts on the matter, but I trust you’ll understand and forgive me. On another note, I would like to ask a favor of you: please be considerate when giving me credit for works that I haven’t done and praise that I do not deserve. The first is destructive and the second is unhelpful. Thanks again for your kind invitation to participate, and my regrets for not being able to take part this time. I hope there might be another chance for us to be in touch sometime in the future. Meanwhile, here’s wishing all of you the very best with your own work.
 * Comment by Gjekë Marinaj

Please contact me if you need help or have questions.

Sincerely,

Gjekë Marinaj

[Contact info removed]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.246.247 (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was tempted to recomment merging to Gjekë Marinaj, but after searching for sources I decided he probably wasn't notable. (I nominated that article for AfD while I was there - see Articles for deletion/Gjekë Marinaj.) I see that there are a number of mentions of Protonism on these news sites, but searching for sources about the sites themselves didn't turn up anything of note, so I am assuming that they do not count as reliable sources for our purposes. As others have noted, searches for Protonism don't get any hits from any of the likely places, so I have to conclude that this theory isn't notable. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:43, 13 April 2012


 * Strong Keep I am a student at the University of Westminster. Yesterday, my literature professor explained the concept of “Protonism.” Today I decided to conduct some additional research on it. Now I see that you are considering it for deletion. Wow! How can anyone propose this when the approach of Protonism seems to be one of the best ways to ensure high-quality literature in the decades to come. Because literature serves so many roles in society, there are a wide range of pieces that will appeal to individuals, and it is not the place of the literary critic to say that a piece of literature is bad just because the critic is not part of the intended audience. Instead, critics should identify what resonates with universal ideals, which supports the role of literature in shaping individuals…. We can definitely learn from this literary theory. Deleting it is like denying us access to valuable knowledge. This is a new low for you Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvisoflondon (talk • contribs) (another one) Collect (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidence of notability please. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Elvisoflondon - maybe you could ask your literature professor what sources he used to get his information on protonism from? We have a lot of random articles uploaded to Wikipedia every day, so we need some kind of evidence that the things contained in them are actually important in some way. We do this by looking for reliable sources on the topic at hand. Have a look at our notability guidelines for the details. The bottom line is, if you find the sources, the article gets kept. If your professor is talking about protonism, then he must have got his sources from somewhere. Just leave a note here of where we can get hold of the sources, and someone will investigate it. Bear in mind that this discussion will probably only be open until April 16th though. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:12, 14 April 2012 (U
 * Two sources for Mr. Stradivarius: My literature professor is a lady. Glad to hear that if I find the sources “the article gets kept.” There are two sources. The first reading is placed on Course Reserve and I will not have access to it until Wednesday, the 18th. However, I was able to locate the bibliographical part of it: Dibrani, Shefqet. 11 minuta para ores '00'. Prishtinë : 2011. Pg. 18-19. Translated from Albanian into English by Irena Papingji.
 * The second is a handout copy from a journal called “Pena International”:
 * Walker, Kristen M. “Protonism: The Role of Positive Literary Critiques in Contemporary American Writing" Pena International. Spring 2012. p. 23-26.
 * This is how the article starts:
 * Protonism: The Role of Positive Literary Critiques in Contemporary American Writing
 * By Kristen M. Walker
 * Literary criticism is deeply ingrained in the American people, with many individuals skimming book jackets, looking up book reviews online, and asking friends and colleagues for recommendations before reading a particular piece of literature. (Rest of text removed for being a probable copyright violation.)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvisoflondon (talk • contribs) 07:05, 15 April 2012‎ (UTC)


 * About your literature professor - my bad. About the Walker source - I'm afraid we can't use anything from Pena International, as Marinaj is its editor, as well as being the founder and president of The Society of Albanian-American Writers who publish it. The Dibrani source is a little more likely, and I managed to find some of its text in Albanian on shkoder.net. I have been relying on Google Translate for this, but it seems like the text included in that pdf file only touches on protonism briefly, and is really about a different subject altogether, the Democratic League of Kosovo. Maybe protonism is covered further on in the book? More importantly, though, I am struggling to find any record of this book in any major book catalogues, and it doesn't seem to have an ISBN number, which makes me think it might be self-published. Self-published sources, unfortunately, cannot provide evidence of notability. Do you have any information on who the publisher might be? I can't find any under the name "Prishtinë". Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – Definately WP:FRINGE and WP:NEO and concept fails WP:GNG; its not notable in any way. Google News search gives zero hits for "Protonism" or "Gjeke Marinaj" Here, I agree with Collect, Drmies, JFHJr and others. 87.236.90.41 (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete. Skeptic as I was about this Protonism theory, I decided to read the Albanian version of the book Protonizmi: Nga Teoria në Praktikë (Protonism: Theory into Practice). I must confess; I find some of its key points to be of immense help to the people of the Balkans. Here in Eastern Europe, unlike in most western countries where for generations, tolerance and fairness toward other cultures have been well expressed and promoted, we have encouraged constant nationalism and hatred against our neighbors. The bloody results need not words. This book is the only book I know that strongly dejects hatred and promotes embracing the good element in every work of literature regardless of the nationality or religion of the author. As an Albanian, I have been hoping for a long time that a call for peace and understanding would spark somewhere. I am glad it did. Should you delete this article? Well, since by profession I am only a scientist and know nothing about the English Wikipedia politics and procedures, I will leave it to your discretion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acokaj (talk • contribs) 08:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)    (yet another "single edit editor" Collect (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Quarantine Protonism? It would be a mistake. Protonism continues the long chain of philosophical debates that began in ancient history. The questions of truth and virtue, ethics and restitution posed by Marinaj are not a hazard to the radical beliefs on human behavior and freedom. In contrary, Marinaj illustrates how the world's greatest literary minds can join forces to stop human conflict in its embryonic stages. He urges us to start interpreting the complexities of human existence from a positive vantage point. He makes the ideas of literary theory trilling, zealous, appealing, and gratifying. Read his book.  Dr. Charles, UCLA        — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.50.76 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)  (yet another one!) Collect (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Call for snow on this deletion - the "do not deletes" are quacking loudly. Collect (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added this most recent one to the SPI. I hope admins will look at Sockpuppet investigations/Festes soon (hint hint) and then at this and the other AfD. It's just too obvious--it's silly at this point, even pathetic. One wonders if someone is up for tenure or something. Thanks Collect. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A pitiful showing by the !keeps, for sure. A sockdrawerful. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Stinky socks too. You'd think they'd make more of an effort to look different. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Did they set the record yet? Collect (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (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.