Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:24, 18 October 2009

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Technocracy Study Course

• Articles for deletion/Technocracy Study Course
• Articles for deletion/Technocracy Study Course (2nd nomination)

Technocracy Study Course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 Misplaced Pages. - 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 Misplaced Pages. 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#Reasons_for_deletion 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#Notable. 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 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)
• 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)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates