Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurentian consensus
- 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. slakr\ talk / 02:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Laurentian consensus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable phrase. The book that it is from does not have its own article, so why should the phrase? JDDJS (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable subject, does not meet WP:N, with one exception only cites primary refs. Article was created by an editor with a long history of promoting the people and ideas of one political party, while attacking other political parties and this article is an attempt to further that agenda, as per WP:SOAPBOX. The page creator is currently being considered for a topic ban for biased editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal_to_ban_JOttawa16_from_political_articles. - Ahunt (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete For reasons already given. --Rob (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete -- This is neologism prevesneting the academic POV of the two authors of a book. It might be possible to transwikify a definition to the dictionary, but I would prefer a plain delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I've been tempted off-and-on to nominate this for deletion, but I satisfied myself with tagging it for notability. I do not believe this phrase is notable, and it's part of a campaign on the part of a biased editor to use Wikipedia as his own personal soapbox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. There could be an article that could be written about the book, but this would not be it. --John (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. This phrase has been discussed in many venues that are independent of the authors of the book that coined it. Steve Paikin did a whole episode of The Agenda on "The Laurentian Consensus", and it has appeared in op-eds by unaffiliated people. Googling the phrase yields many pages of results independent of the coiners from print media and major online outlets. The Laurentian Consensus book is also on a syllabus I found for a 4th year political science course at Wilfred Laurier, so the phrase has some currency in academia, as well. The GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" where "'[s]ignificant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". On this definition, the phrase / underlying concept is notable. A second issue that has been raised is that of soapboxing by the author of the article. However, each article stands on its own, and the assertion that the editor has "a long history of promoting the people and ideas of one political party, while attacking other political parties" is irrelevant to the deletion discussion for this article, even if it is true. An editor could have violated many Wikipedia guidelines and been banned in perpetuity, and this would still not be grounds for removing otherwise unobjectionable contributions they had previously made to the encyclopaedia. Basically, if a subject is notable then it is presumed to be worthy of an article. This article should be written objectively, in an NPOV fashion. If other editors do not believe that the article is written in a balanced fashion, then they should fix it. Deletion is a valid response only to articles that cannot even in theory be made NPOV. This one plainly can be, and arguably already is. Fun with aluminum (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- NPOV is acheived by fairly using reliable sources from all sides/perspectives, giving each fair weight (following what the sources say). That's very straightforward in articles about the Liberal Party of Canada or Politics of Canada or any neutrally named article. However, when you name the article after a term only one perspective uses, the only sources you'll find are those that use the bias term (therefore showing their bias). So, if the term is to be referenced, it should be in a larger article, with more perspectives represented. A few very famous terms, even though inherently bias, have so much widespread coverage, that we can actually cover them in an NPOV manner. I suggest we don't yet have enough sources to cover this in an NPOV manner (stories written in the Globe and NP by authors of the book don't help). I could be proven wrong if the article was improved beyond what I think it can be, but that hasn't happened. Finally, no we don't keep every article that "in theory" can be fixed. We routinely delete promotional and/or attack material of all sorts, even though it could be fixed one day, but isn't acceptable today. Failing to do so, just encourages more of the same. --Rob (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- So we have dealt with the notability issue and we are now discussing perceived bias in the article: the soapboxing allegation, correct? This said, a couple of your comments on NPOV did not strike me as in line with the WP usage of that term. Absolutely anything can be covered in an NPOV fashion because POV/NPOV is an attribute of an article, not of the underlying subject matter or of the mental state / agenda of its authors. This is true even if the underlying subject is a "bias term" or something worse. WP has articles on anti-Semitic slanders promoted by the Nazis, but the articles are still NPOV, because the authors were careful to write them that way. Furthermore, our ability to cover something in a neutral manner does not depend on a certain number of critical sources being available. As long as there is reliable information about what Ibbotson (or Pol Pot or Genghis Khan!) said, we can say "Ibbotson argued..." and be NPOV, which is in fact what the article essentially already does. Since the article is about a notable subject that can be (in fact is, for the most part) written in a neutral way, it should be kept. This is not to say that the article as it stands is that great--would you like to work with me on improving it? If you want to satisfy yourself that this is a concept that serious, disinterested people are discussing, please check some of the sources I indicated above, particularly that episode of The Agenda. I found the book being discussed favourably from both the right (Halifax Chronicle Herald op-ed) and the left (babbble.ca); the concept is not so politically loaded as you might think. Fun with aluminum (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- For "the most part" the article is not written in a neutral matter at all. The article is writing about certain people/ideas. But, it exclusively presents negative views on those people/views. Now, there are ample sources that write about essentially the same topic, which can give neutral or positive views on the same people/ideas. But, none of those balancing sources use the term "Laurentian consensus", and therefore can't be used in this article. If you have some sources that use "Laurentian consensus" without supporting the author's perspective, then please provide them in the article, and we can evaluate them. I'm happy to be proven wrong. But, for now, I see this article as a clever tactic on the part of the author to write an article, that will always show his personal political perspective, to the exclusion of others. --Rob (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- The author's motives are not relevant to the discussion about whether an article on "The Laurentian Consensus" belongs on Wikipedia. Let's set them aside for now. Since we have established notability, a need is presumed for an NPOV article about this subject. It is entirely possible to have an NPOV discussion of a highly loaded term: Late Capitalism and Partial-birth abortion are both loaded terms only used by opponents of their associated concepts, and so are only ever used in a negative light. And yet WP contains NPOV discussions of both: one in its own article, and one as a section of another article. To be NPOV, the article should not take a stand on whether the Laurentian Consensus concept is a good one. If the term is used by supporters as well as opponents, then we absolutely must indicate this. You seem to be saying that you did not find evidence of it being used by self-identified supporters. If this is the case, then describing neutrally what people who use the term say is correct, and a completely NPOV course of action. But in any event, I am going to edit some of the more tendentious parts of the article now to make the tone a bit more neutral / suitable for WP. Let me know what you think. Fun with aluminum (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- When I said uses were "negative", I meant negative towards those considered to be part of the "Laurentian consensus". Only those who oppose what they call the "Laurentian consensus" use the term. For example, no Liberal would use the term. Partial-birth abortion has massive coverage, and is referenced even by those who despise the existence of the term. I'm not absolutely opposed to ever writing an article about a bias term. I just ask for evidence that the term is referenced by more than those who share the bias. --Rob (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Here is an example of the term being referenced in a neutral way by an unbiased source, listing a number of popular policies as "Milestones of the Laurentian Consensus": http://theagenda.tvo.org/story/laurentian-consensus
- When I said uses were "negative", I meant negative towards those considered to be part of the "Laurentian consensus". Only those who oppose what they call the "Laurentian consensus" use the term. For example, no Liberal would use the term. Partial-birth abortion has massive coverage, and is referenced even by those who despise the existence of the term. I'm not absolutely opposed to ever writing an article about a bias term. I just ask for evidence that the term is referenced by more than those who share the bias. --Rob (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- We had an edit conflict on this page, so here is what I was writing while you were working on your last comment: Looking at the article again, I agree with you that some of it was written in a rather pointed, POV way. I have edited it so it is now quite neutral in tone and just describes the core ideas. Please give it a look with fresh eyes and let me know what you think. Right now, it is way too Ibbotson-centric (more like an article on The Big Shift than on the Laurentian Consensus). I want to put in some of the other references I found on the Laurentian Consensus, but don't want to put too much work in while it is under deletion threat. Hopefully you guys will agree with me that the article is OK now and agree to keep it. Fun with aluminum (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- The author's motives are not relevant to the discussion about whether an article on "The Laurentian Consensus" belongs on Wikipedia. Let's set them aside for now. Since we have established notability, a need is presumed for an NPOV article about this subject. It is entirely possible to have an NPOV discussion of a highly loaded term: Late Capitalism and Partial-birth abortion are both loaded terms only used by opponents of their associated concepts, and so are only ever used in a negative light. And yet WP contains NPOV discussions of both: one in its own article, and one as a section of another article. To be NPOV, the article should not take a stand on whether the Laurentian Consensus concept is a good one. If the term is used by supporters as well as opponents, then we absolutely must indicate this. You seem to be saying that you did not find evidence of it being used by self-identified supporters. If this is the case, then describing neutrally what people who use the term say is correct, and a completely NPOV course of action. But in any event, I am going to edit some of the more tendentious parts of the article now to make the tone a bit more neutral / suitable for WP. Let me know what you think. Fun with aluminum (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- For "the most part" the article is not written in a neutral matter at all. The article is writing about certain people/ideas. But, it exclusively presents negative views on those people/views. Now, there are ample sources that write about essentially the same topic, which can give neutral or positive views on the same people/ideas. But, none of those balancing sources use the term "Laurentian consensus", and therefore can't be used in this article. If you have some sources that use "Laurentian consensus" without supporting the author's perspective, then please provide them in the article, and we can evaluate them. I'm happy to be proven wrong. But, for now, I see this article as a clever tactic on the part of the author to write an article, that will always show his personal political perspective, to the exclusion of others. --Rob (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- So we have dealt with the notability issue and we are now discussing perceived bias in the article: the soapboxing allegation, correct? This said, a couple of your comments on NPOV did not strike me as in line with the WP usage of that term. Absolutely anything can be covered in an NPOV fashion because POV/NPOV is an attribute of an article, not of the underlying subject matter or of the mental state / agenda of its authors. This is true even if the underlying subject is a "bias term" or something worse. WP has articles on anti-Semitic slanders promoted by the Nazis, but the articles are still NPOV, because the authors were careful to write them that way. Furthermore, our ability to cover something in a neutral manner does not depend on a certain number of critical sources being available. As long as there is reliable information about what Ibbotson (or Pol Pot or Genghis Khan!) said, we can say "Ibbotson argued..." and be NPOV, which is in fact what the article essentially already does. Since the article is about a notable subject that can be (in fact is, for the most part) written in a neutral way, it should be kept. This is not to say that the article as it stands is that great--would you like to work with me on improving it? If you want to satisfy yourself that this is a concept that serious, disinterested people are discussing, please check some of the sources I indicated above, particularly that episode of The Agenda. I found the book being discussed favourably from both the right (Halifax Chronicle Herald op-ed) and the left (babbble.ca); the concept is not so politically loaded as you might think. Fun with aluminum (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- NPOV is acheived by fairly using reliable sources from all sides/perspectives, giving each fair weight (following what the sources say). That's very straightforward in articles about the Liberal Party of Canada or Politics of Canada or any neutrally named article. However, when you name the article after a term only one perspective uses, the only sources you'll find are those that use the bias term (therefore showing their bias). So, if the term is to be referenced, it should be in a larger article, with more perspectives represented. A few very famous terms, even though inherently bias, have so much widespread coverage, that we can actually cover them in an NPOV manner. I suggest we don't yet have enough sources to cover this in an NPOV manner (stories written in the Globe and NP by authors of the book don't help). I could be proven wrong if the article was improved beyond what I think it can be, but that hasn't happened. Finally, no we don't keep every article that "in theory" can be fixed. We routinely delete promotional and/or attack material of all sorts, even though it could be fixed one day, but isn't acceptable today. Failing to do so, just encourages more of the same. --Rob (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2014 (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.