Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technocracy Study Course (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   merge to Technocracy Incorporated. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Technocracy Study Course
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously deleted, recreated by the same user, who is also pretty much the sole significant contributor to the article and is prominently identified as being associated wiht its subject matter (see WP:COI). I just checked the references, only one has a mention to the words "study course" and that was "we created a kind of study course". So, while this article gives the appearance of being referenced, it doe not actually seem to cite sources actually discussing the subject. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * merge some small amount of this into the article for Technocracy Incorporated. Make a redirect, and protect it.    DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepThis is the precedent book which founded a social movement based on what is considered the first think tank in the United States from Columbia University Engineering Department, the Technical Alliance and the book contains the results of this groups Energy Survey of North America among other things. The social group which developed around the book, was the fastest growing social movement in the United States in the early 1930's. It was written by M. King Hubbert arguably the most notable geo scientist produced by America (Peak oil). It has a Pdf. link to the book itself, hosted by the original group, of which I am not a member. The official Social Security History website has a special section just on Technocracy scroll down to that section Modern Energy accounting is based on ideas from this book, which are now mainstream, and extensive notability as to ideas connected also formed the later basis of thermoeconomics- It is noted that another editor worked extensively on the article also in the ref/note citation area. This book is extremely notable as the precedent publication of the original group, and as far as any conflict of interest, it is noted that reliable sources and N.p.o.v. are the very basis of editing on Wikipedia. - skip sievert talk) 02:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * merge per   DGG JQ (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect and protect per DGG; no need to merge any content as SS has already spammed many other WP pages with info about the Technocracy Study Course. Johnfos (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Spam has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. I suggest you refactor your comment above. That is making an attack on an editor here. skip sievert (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep 1) Guy, this is your second AfD nomination of the article. Per WP:DP Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again. 2) WP:COI:  WP:DP does not list a conflict of interest as a reason for deletion.  The reason given to delete this article does not have a valid basis.  The primary editor, SS is not a member of the Technocracy group involved with writing the subject.  Skip is a self-admitted Technocrat contributing to this article, but that is not a conflict of interest.  I also edited the article having been interested in the background of M. King Hubbert of Peak oil fame.  I have no conflict of interest between the subject - Technocracy Study Course, Technocracy and M. King Hubbert and Peak oil, nor do I really have any emotional ties to the subject.  I am not a Technocrat, nor do I subscribe to their economic and social theories. I have spent quite a few hours checking and correcting references and correcting them, and re-writing parts of the article to fit what the references said.  If you search my name, I am an engineer with ten patents and have published a book about Wi-Fi, but that is not a conflict of interest when I edit articles with engineering.  Why are you not deleting the thousands of Pokemon articles written by Pokemon fans due to WP:COI?  I'm sure many of the authors of Pokemon articles also contribute to discussion groups on the Internet. 3) Notability.  I do not buy your made to look like it's referenced argument.  I have looked at the references as a part of my contribution to the new article.  We had a whole notability discussion on the new and revised article.  Talk:Technocracy_Study_Course.  Where were you in this discussion?  Hmmmm? 4) WP:BIAS "Bias is not manifested only in article creation – deletion is a source of intellectual bias"  Since this is your second AfD request on the same article, I must understand your bias in making this request.  Why are you bent on deleting this article?  Your profile is rather anonymous.  Why?   kgrr  talk 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Explanation Needed Skipsievert-- why were you in favor of deletion of the first version of this page on grounds the information was already available elsewhere, but then re-created the page on your own and are now standing firm behind it? Also, you failed to mention in your statements here that you were the primary author of the article being discussed here which in violation of the participation section guidelines within WP:AfD. I'm a firm believer of WP:AGF but I need an explanation as to why you violated policy to defend yourself. From your postings you seem to be a strict follower of WP:NPOV, you can surely appreciate why I think clarification would be helpful. Datheisen (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be speaking of this[Sustainability] edit war highly populated by the author of this article that's been shoved up to an ANI.


 * Sure. Number 1. as Jzg mentioned in the heading above, I started the article, I assume you read that? So what is the issue there? This is the only article I had made on Wikipedia and it did not turn out so well the first time around. Since then my skills have improved and I found a lot more information as to sourcing the information. Also JzG was cutting out a lot of dead wood articles connected to the subject, and I felt like cooperating with him also. I also voted to delete this one, put up by Jzg... Network of European Technocrats by a non notable group, now blocked for spamming and recreating their article multiple times, and, not really connected to the original group. The current information as to sourcing or linking refs is probably not available elsewhere given this way now since myself and another editor worked together on it collaborated on it in its present form which I think is pretty good in presentation, and the original group made an unabridged addition open source and here now also. Formerly the copy was an abridged edition...


 * So, as an article I thought the first article was not that hot, but think this one is very good and that this book is extremely notable in the present time. It actually formed the basis of Energy economics and later ecological economics along with some other information. skip sievert (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarification Needed Johnfos-- can you cite evidence of WP:CFORK to back up your claim? I will assume that's the meaning you had. Datheisen (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to Datheisen. Thank you for asking for more info. I'm not suggesting a fork so much as an inappropriate splattering of information about the TSC in many other articles, see . The TSC seems to be SS's pet topic, and he advertised the course on his user page for some time, and provided a link to it .  For more of my thoughts on SS's POV-pushing in relation to Technocracy articles, see . Johnfos (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note on Johnphos. This editor follows me around negatively and has for a long time, and also recently... examples here and is posting the Ani above inappropriately here in my view. I won't get into that subject here except to say it is about a content dispute about and neutral pov, and some people canvassed people to attack in sort of a creative but malicious way. This editor goes where ever I am to accost. Not sure why. skip sievert (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 *  Delete or Merge  see below -- WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and arguably WP:SPS from admission linked here, etc, delete, unless a proper justification can be given beyond a generic WP:N in which case merge. As the editor inserted him/herself into this discussion by free will, I'd say that WP:RRULE with association to editor would allow the edit archive links given be used for an evaluation of the overall topic. An explanation of edits done to hide discussion of own NPOV issues in articles and break AfD discussion standards is needed or the COI is blatant. If an article is truly written to just, proper standards and the editor has nothing to hide from then it should speak for itself and the editor would never need to speak on its behalf in defense, which is why I can't say it should be kept. Even a merged article would probably need a rewrite to avoid any later need for debate on similar grounds as this. Datheisen (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If an article is truly written to just, proper standards and the editor has nothing to hide from then it should speak for itself and the editor would never need to speak on its behalf in defense, which is why I can't say it should be kept. end quote. Huh? This is an Afd, and that is what happens at these events. I think your comment above is a little over the top Datheisen. Written to just and proper standards? It is. I am NOT in a conflict of interest, nor have been. I hope that is clear. Your not debating the article here, you are debating me, as to your opinion of me, and using a very negative tone. The article is interesting and important. Its not about me. skip sievert (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge -- I appreciate information from both sites. Merge per DGG's suggestion. After looking a little deeper into things I can see there are far bigger issues to hammer out, but in the instance of this article I can't see why putting the bits of unique information into the parent article and that seems like a reasonable compromise between deletion and endless edit wars. Though I don't want to be bullied away from discussion by a WP:BITE pouncing, this seems like quite a simple something to resolve versus what involved editors here already have on their plates. Datheisen (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Endless edit wars? Nonsense.  Things have been calm until this AfD without discussing any of the issues in talk.  The issue of Notability had been addressed in the talk page there was no follow-on discussion for for **7 months**.  As far as I can see, the article is Notable.  There was never any discussion in talk about WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and arguably WP:SPS in the talk page either.  And now we see out of nowhere an AfD request.  Nonsense.  Why are the alleged COI, NPOV and SPS issues not being discussed?  There is no need to merge a small amount, redirect and protect as suggested by DGG.  The intent is to burn and bury this content from Wikipedia permanently.  I disagree. "there can always be justice if all are given a fair playing field with which to form consensus under listed guidelines." - Datheisen  Think about it. kgrr  talk 16:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarification to Kgrr -- I'd be referring to the many-months-long edit war frequented by the author of this article at Sustainability. It has been shot up to ANI and has substantial admin support for a user block on the topic. AGF is hard to go with when an editor will go to such lengths. Skipsievert is also involved in Mediation elsewhere, and has even pulled out of a mediation for a group related to this topic. I just can't go with AGF any further with an established history of disruption of an editor blocking any and all changes to his/her content. Since the editor suggesting this AfD is also involved within the project, I'm trying to split the difference and consider the possible COI of both and think a merge would be most appropriate without adding even more problems or tearing up another larger project. I asked for clarification from both, they both replied, my suggestion is merge. Datheisen (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Datheisen -- I disagree completely.  The majority of what's here is an obvious outpour of hate.  You still have not convinced me of any of the merits of this AfD *attack*.  kgrr  talk 11:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like the judgments above by Datheisen. I have not engaged in an edit war as you described above and there is and has been a content dispute, but that is NOT connected here, and stirring things, misinterpreting things as to the Ani, and a Mediation is pointless here. I have not blocked any or all changes to content. Please desist... now. Tearing up another larger project? I have no idea what you are talking about there. Your opinion of an Ani that you think has support one way or another? Could you stop crossing over from thing to thing? I think this is a good article and as has been said it is notable. skip sievert (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification-- Actually this added comment to this page below explains what I'm saying perfectly and that it is entirely reasonable to consider the motivations of the edits of someone currently in incident profiles. Actually, in above comments you accuse other editors of being engaged in disruptive behavior, so I cannot see why you should be allowed to make those statements yet remain immune from criticism. As such, I see no reason to listen to baseless threats fro you. Even considering all that, do keep in mind that my suggestion is not to delete this page-- I took evidence from both sides and evaluated-- so it cannot be said I'm being unfair to you. As a third-party observer, it's a sour feeling to attempt to be driven away. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Datheisen You took evidence from both sides? BS. What I am observing here is behavior where several non-contributing authors or self-appointed Wikipedia policemen are looking to remove an article rather than working with it based on its own merits.  So far, all I see is an AdHominem attack focused on Skipsievert. Your whole focus has been to burn and bury this article.  What you have not done is to address the complaint on its own merit.  Let's lay it out.  I don't want to hear anything about anybody's personal issues at ANI or whatever.  Discuss only the complaints about the article and nothing else.  Two issues were brought up in this AfD complaint 1) Conflict of Interest and 2) Notability.   I repeat none of the alleged COI or notability issues have been addressed. 1) You all seem to have a problem with Skip's alleged conflict of interest.  I'm an engineer and a member of IEEE.  Does that prohibit me from editing an engineering related article?  No.  About IEEE?  No.  I am not the IEEE.  The article is not about Skip although he is a believer in Technocracy or simply 'Technate'.  Skip is not the subject of the article, a free book is that Skip did not write.  I really don't see a COI issue.  Since it's not being discussed, obviously you don't really have a problem with the issue.  2) The talk page in the article has a lengthy discussion about the notability issue.  I believe since you are not willing to address it or discuss it any further for *seven months*, obviously you are all satisfied with the Notability aspect. You still have not convinced me of the merits of this AfD complaint.  Keep  kgrr  talk 11:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and salt per DGG; the topics are so closely related and this is just not notable by itself. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and salt Agree with above. No need for a repeat of the same information. Any unrepeated information can be merged back to main Technocracy page. LK (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. This AfD is being discussed at ANI, in relation to a thread about SS as a disruptive editor, see, -- Johnfos (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. What does what you are posting above have to do with the A.f.d. here? I think bringing arguments here that are unrelated and hectoring as in wiki-hounding is not called for. Noted before that you Johnfos have gone from article to article making commentary like the above here. This is an Afd. about a book created/written by M. King Hubbert one of the most notable scientists of the 20th. century. How on earth is the Technocracy Study Course even a subject for an article of deletion on Wikipedia? This seems almost comical now with the comments being drawn together by editors and the lack of actual discussion of the subject here. The only person so far to accurately comment on the value of this book is kgrr. Could we stop the cross referencing to unrelated things now? - skip sievert (talk) 16:18, 20 October 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.