Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Decipherment of rongorongo/Dietrich

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  no consensus. Recommend moving this page into userspace, where it won't upset anyone with its presence in article talk space, and where the author can still easily reference it in any future discussions.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 16:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Decipherment of rongorongo/Dietrich

 * * Pppery * it has begun... 04:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This is an attempt to circumvent article consensus and doesn't belong in article talk space. I moved it to user space but was reverted. I could merge it, but that would just spark another edit-war. Please either delete or move to an appropriate location.

[Edit: Per the 1st para in WP:COPYARTICLE, it seems this should simply be deleted.]

This is FRINGE material that the author (User:Bigdan201) has been edit-warring for years to include in Decipherment of rongorongo against unanimous opposition. Although Bigdan201 continues to sporadically restore it to article space, they placed a backup copy at this location, so that readers would continue to have access to it, out of frustration at not being able to get it to stick in Article space. Because this page is an individual project, essentially a sandbox section WP:DRAFT, and not a discussion on improving the article as required for Talk space (where a simple link to the page history would suffice), I moved it to their personal user space. They recently moved it back, with the edit-summary that "it's directly relevant to the article".

The normal way of preserving a version of an article in Talk space would be to link to the page history, which Bigdan201 has also done. (See the top of Talk:Decipherment of rongorongo.) They created this pseudo-article to house their deleted content after adding it to Article space – and being reverted – scores of times. They linked to it from a dedicated section in the Article Talk with the explanation, "my edits on April 1 [the latest restoration of the deleted content] were a prank, which ended up confusing another editor (though at least I got content to stick for several hours). secondly, since kwami has finally archived the talk page, I'd like to link my content again for easy reference (Dietrich & De Laat). Backup section on Dietrich: Talk:Decipherment of rongorongo/Dietrich [along with several links to the page history]"

Pinging.

— kwami (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, health problems and too many other articles means I am not getting involved here. Doug Weller  talk 09:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I think a topic ban is justified. Trying to force one's pet theory in is one thing. Being unresponsive to argumented objections is worse. Removing important content (Kudrjavtsev et al) is the limit. Three strikes: out. Mary de Laat (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough. A topic ban sounds like a good idea. Sumanuil. 01:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It's barely a consensus. It's mostly just a dispute between myself & kwami, with Austronesier siding with kwami.


 * It's not FRINGE, for the simple reason that rongorongo is an unsolved mystery. Therefore, any guess with the RS to back it up is as good as any other, and I have the RS. If you consider a theory you don't like to be FRINGE, then by that logic, the entire article could be nominated for deletion as FRINGE.


 * As for the section, I just thought a talk subpage would be a more appropriate location for disputed content. And that's what it is, a disputed means to improve the article, not a draft (or previous version). That same content stayed up in mainspace for quite awhile. If you really insist that it go in my userspace, I'd be willing to accept that, but I don't see the need.


 * The issue is blatant gatekeeping and OWNERSHIP. As I said on the talk page, there is no consistent, coherent objection to my content. FRINGE makes no sense in this context. As for DUEWEIGHT, that's why I chopped the section down to about 1/4 of its original length (I need illustrations and a few paragraphs to properly explain the ideas, less than that is insufficient). Another objection was NOTABILITY, which doesn't even apply! They argued that my sources were insufficient, so I took a look at the article, and found that existing sections have even less sourcing than my own. When I pointed this out, the article's gatekeepers shifted goalposts to cites in literature. Fine, but then I found a section lacking both sources & cites, yet it's kept in, and my content is kept out. It's completely contradictory.


 * So, that's the summary for anyone who hasn't been following the whole thing. Most of the voluminous discussion on Talk was an academic discussion on the ideas, which is actually irrelevant -- it's about policies on here, and I see no coherent policy-based objections. Again, I'm willing to compromise and work with others, within reason.


 * Pinging relevant editors you missed: see above. Xcalibur (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It's been a week without much activity, can this be closed and my content kept? Having read up on this, it seems I had the right idea after all: WP:WORP WP:COPIES Xcalibur (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, I should've tagged it as db-g4 speedy deletion. It does not qualify for WP:SP as it is Writing a content fork to avoid NPOV. It doesn't qualify as WP:WORP because it isn't material being developed for inclusion in the article, but rather material that has been rejected from the article. You can have Temporary subpages in Talk namespace, but it's already been years and you evidently intend this as a permanent pseudo-article, and Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia is disallowed, so that's out too.
 * But user space isn't appropriate either. Per COPYARTICLE, Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. So yeah, it looks like this page should simply be deleted. You can always link to the article history, as you already have. — kwami (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete doesn't apply here, because it was never deleted or rejected, rather it's disputed material. It's not a content fork either, and NPOV doesn't even apply (because rongorongo is undeciphered)! It's intended for inclusion, and it's stored there temporarily so long as it's disputed. It seems prudent to keep it in a convenient location, because you might change your mind any day, and then it could go up; it's just waiting for your assent, that's all. Thus, the nonsense about a "permanent pseudo-article" doesn't apply here. I figured a talk subpage would be appropriate, and I have no idea why you're so vociferously opposed. Do you think this is a war, and I'm capturing your territory? Honestly, I'm willing to work with you, within reason. Also, it's already been years keep in mind, I took a long wikibreak in the middle. Xcalibur (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Discussion was never properly transcluded to Miscellany for deletion until now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 04:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can this be closed as keep/no consensus? It's been 2 weeks, and discussions on misc. for deletion are supposed to be 1 week. Xcalibur (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * btw, you may want to look up FRINGE (and other policies) and realize what they actually mean, and why they're irrelevant here. Xcalibur (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - This appears to be actually a sub-page of an article, that has been made into a sub-page of the talk page because sub-pages of articles are not allowed. Sub-pages of articles are not allowed because they are usually content forks, and this is indeed a content fork.  If this was in the article and was moved, it is still in the article history, where it should be.  Whether it should be in the article should be decided either by normal discussion or by RFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Questions - Is there a question about whether this should be in the article? Who created this subpage, and why do they think that they created it?  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is unanimous consent, apart from the creator Xcalibur, that this is pseudoscholarship and does not belong in the article. (I was the only other person to support its inclusion, but I changed my mind five years ago.) Xcalibur created this sub-article because their chronic edit-war to retain the material wasn't succeeding, and they wanted to keep the rejected material available for readers. — kwami (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call this unanimous consent, more like a severe case of OWNERSHIP. And no, you personally disagreeing with the material doesn't make it pseudo-scholarship. As I've said many times, it's published & positively reviewed in academic literature, which means it's not pseudo, because WP follows the RS (which you don't have). In other words, for WP's purposes, my sources disprove your claim. More importantly, it doesn't actually matter whether it's right or wrong! It can be wrong and still be documented in the article. As for the talk subpage, I just thought it would be convenient, I don't see what the big deal is. Xcalibur (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is not actually a subpage of the talk page, but a content fork of the article, in talk space, which is appropriate neither in article space nor in talk space.  There is also slow-motion edit-warring to include this in the article and to exclude it from the article.  Since normal discussion is not resolving whether to have this in the article, the RFC option should be used to establish negative consensus, but that is beyond the scope of this MFD.  The scope of this MFD is whether this page should exist, and it is a content fork and should be deleted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2022 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.