I believe that the page should be put back up in light of ongoing media coverage of apartheid policies being practiced by the indigenous Shia majority of Bahrain by the Sunni monarchy and government. In particular, Since the page was deleted, Ali Akbar Salehi, the Foreign Minister of Iran, has formally expressed his government's concern over the “apartheid-like” discrimination practiced against the the Shiite majority by the government of Bahrain in a letter addressed to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.[1] And the press, particularly in Iran, has continued to cover the issue and to call it apartheid, as does the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights and international observers including Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an FYI, the options for a deletion review differ from an AfD. I had to learn this as well, so I am pointing it out to you here. The options are to either endorse the outcome (in this case deletion), relist, or overturn (in this case to keep the article). CycloneGU (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's slightly more complex than that. The common statement of "not afd round 2" encapsulates that. So merely stating overturn because you disagree with the outcome, or endorse merely because you agree are not valid sentiments. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CycloneGU, I. Causabon is basically asking for an "allow recreation" judgment, which doesn't deal with whether the prior AFD was valid but instead argues that circumstances have changed, such as by new sources arising that establish notability. See warning and discussion. postdlf (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad. I did click to the AfD after posting the comment and found it closed on April 10, so I wondered if it was just being brought up again very quickly on the heels of the closed AfD. Either way, I am willing to entertain a discussion on it, I have not yet cast an opinion. Also, overturn basically goes along with permit recreation here. CycloneGU (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The expanded version of this article that I wish to create is sourced to the Foreign Minister of Iran, the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, Time Magazine, and Human Rights Watch, all of which have published reports and articles about the anti-Shia discrimination in Bahrain calling it "apartheid." When I posted the article with this extensive sourcing, in addition to sourcing form a number of publications and human rights organization in the Muslim world, it was instantly deleted by User:Postdlf, on the grounds that the previous version with far fewer sources had been deleted.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD commenters expressly criticized the very notion of having this topic as a stand-alone article, calling the article POV, WP:POINTy, and WP:SYNTH. Many of them also expressly noted that while some sources may have used the word "apartheid" to characterize Bahraini discrimination, that did not mean that this labeling itself merited its own article. This was also one of several similar "apartheid in FOO" articles created by you that were all deleted recently for the same reasons. So absent a DRV consensus recognizing that something had changed, my speedy deletion of your recreation was quite proper, and your unilateral recreation was not. Particularly when part of the problems cited with an article in an AFD are related to WP:SYNTH issues, simply invoking the number of sources the article relies upon isn't going to cut it. postdlf (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Even accepting for the sake of argument that reliable sources exist for the claim of apartheid in Bahrain that extend beyond the mere use of the term, I see no justification for this to exist as a stand-alone article apart from Human rights in Bahrain. Fundamentally, this would constitute a "criticsm of..." article, which, when not developed organically as spinout articles from an overlarge section established by consensus (and, often, even then), must overcome a considerable presumption of being an improper fork. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, and oppose recreation - All this article ever was was a pointy attempt to provide counter-balance to Israel and the apartheid analogy, an article despised by a small cadre of editors. Basically, one massive WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I.Casaubon hit the AfD hat trick a few weeks ago,m having this article deleted along with Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. And Facepalm , there's even a Palestinians in Lebanon he's created recently, but if you read the text of the article it might as well be titled "Apartheid in Lebanon". This is the sort of tendentious editing that needs to be squashed, honestly. Why are we here at DRV, to discuss a "new source" of the Iranian foreign minister penning a letter to the UN complaining about someone else's human rights track record? Seriously? Tarc (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion should be confined to the existence of apartheid in Bahrain, and the significant sources that discuss the conditions in Bahrain as anti-Shia apartheidI.Casaubon (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and oppose recreation. I'm sure it's possible to find some recent articles that use the words "Bahrain" and "apartheid" in close proximity, but that's not a proper standard for inclusion. There is no general debate about the existence or non-existence of "apartheid in Bahrain," and hence no reason for this article to exist. The deletion took place in accordance with proper procedure. CJCurrie (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted that out of that article, it was only as recent addition by our DRV filer here. I wouldn't be terribly opposed to a redirect, but the addition of an apartheid section to a article that is pretty much just a blurb about different ethnic and religious groups is a bit of a stretch, This material would be more suited to Human rights in Bahrain. Tarc (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that everyone here is supporting a general rule: Except for South Africa, all apartheid sections should be rredireced to pages that begin "Human Rights in _____". I am good with such a rule. Even in cases, such as this, where Human Rights Watch, international newspapers including the Guardian and the local Human Rights NGO's and minority press are calling it apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, that is not the case; there is no "one size fits all" rule here, we evaluate each independently and on its own merits. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. In that case I think we should reinstate Apartheid in Bahrain. Reliable NGO's, both HRW and the local Bahrain Centre for Human Rights make a claim that, like the indigenous black population of South Africa, the local indigenous Shia live in a position of legal, economic ans social inferiority imposed by a foreign, colonial regime with an imported Sunni ethno/cultural identity. Like the apartheid-era regime of South Africa, the government of Bahrain recruits foreign settlers of its own ethno/sectarian type (sunni) and gives them citizenship and jobs in the government and security services that it denies to native Shia. Major international newspapers call this apartheid or apartheid-like. Why is this not worthy of an article?I.Casaubon (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apartheid is a word with an incredible amount of historical baggage and very strongly associated emotional response. As with many other terms of similar weight, it gets used from time to time by people making statements to the media, or even by respectable organizations. People may have become inured to claims of discrimination, but even 15 years after the elections that officially ended apartheid in South Africa, use of the word still demands attention. Because it carries such a significant POV, however, Wikipedia has to be cautious in its use, especially in article titling. It is one thing to note, in the context of a human rights discussion, that the Guardian or the New York Times or Human Rights Watch has expressed concerns that a policy or condition might constitute apartheid or be "apartheid-like". It is another thing entirely for an article to be titled as though the existence of apartheid in ... whatever country is the topic at hand at the time ... is a matter of settled, universally-agreed fact. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find Serpent39's argument compelling, which is why it is particularly troubling that although the term "apartheid" is being widely applied to the political situation in Bahrain, Wikipedia appears to allow application of the term only to Israel. This has the distasteful appearance of treating the Jewish state differently than other states. And there is a word for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadeofCalvin (talk • contribs) 07:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC) — ShadeofCalvin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That word is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you object to the titling or content of an article, raise the objection at that article's talk page, at WP:RM, or at AFD -- none of which is where you are at the moment. Oh ... and if you do raise such an objection, you probably shouldn't sock to do it; just sayin'. For my part, I think there's a better way to handle that article than its current trainwreck state, too, but my editing time is far, far too limited at current for me to be willing to dive into anything related to I/P. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It's apartheid," said Mansoor Jamri, who was forced to resign as editor of the independent Al Wasat newspaper. "They've made a decision that half the population is not wanted, and they want to instill fear in this population and dehumanize them."Los Angeles Times, "After crushed protests, Bahrain is accused of deepened oppression of Shiites" [2]I.Casaubon (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
^ ill Varner, [1] "Bahrain Tells UN About Hezbollah’s Efforts to Topple Monarchy", April 26, 2011, Bloomberg.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Last-minute rescue – Current nomination now moot. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked for consistent violations of copyright, and his draft has been deleted for the same. Consensus on whether or not the deletion itself was correct is difficult to judge from the below, due to the amount of time spent on copyright issues, so another DRV is suggested if anyone else feels it necessary. – lifebaka++22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Done. Besides, it's not "a reworking". It's final edition of the article prior to be deleted. Anyone, who can point me out any OR issues in it, strongly welcomed. – George Serdechny14:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer. The article was originally titled Just-in-time lad, purporting to be a stock character, and was deleted as OR. The creator was dismissive and sarcastic in response to the deletion arguments in the AFD; rude in response to my valid, skeptical questions about why I should userfy it when he asked me to do so ("I did not ask for your opinion"), incredibly claiming that he wanted it undeleted so he could nominate it for FA; and after another admin userfied it the creator seemed to treat it as a foregone conclusion that the article was going to be restored to mainspace, not even mentioning in a Wikiproject discussion he started that it was an article that was just AFD'd. So I think there are a number of problems here, first and foremost is that I see no indication that George Serdechny has acknowledged, or understood, the issues raised in the AFD, if he still insists that it has no OR problems. He had already tried retitling it during the AFD to "last-minute-hero".(see comment here) I see no argument here for undeletion or moving his userpage draft to article space other than the fact that he disagreed with the outcome. postdlf (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You only forgot to mention that my "dismissive and sarcastic respond", was a respond to the following statement: "I don't see any hope that this could eventually be restored as an article". What a valid, skeptical questions! And "yes", I'm still insisting that the article has no OR problems. The problem is mostly about the "massive effect" of those who claim it has, without even reading it. Like you, for example. You reproach me with "last-minute-hero" but there were no such definitions in the article when you deleted it. P.S. It seems your time is not so precious as you previously claimed while responding me with "Don't waste my time". Well, if so, then I have to answer simply: Don't waste mine. – George Serdechny15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have given the article another look since my comment. My main issue is that I can't verify a single one of these sources. It looks like some of the sources are themselves encyclopedias, which does suggest notability. I am wondering whether it might be appropriate to relist and at the same time try to give assistance to remove original research even if it means a haircut reducing the article to a fifth its current size (I have no idea if that would be the case, I'm being hypothetical). I might even be able to head to a library at some point and look up some of these, but don't hold your breath for that. Also, don't be in a hurry to nominate it for FA either, that is still far away. CycloneGU (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks, but note that* 15 of 19 referred sources are publicly available at google books and other free-access web-resources. Other 4 available for authorized customers only, but you can easily verify quotations by matching them in the google search line. There are mostly direct quotations. – George Serdechny17:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding that DRV is not AFD round 2, the confusion in the lede alone doesn't inspire me with a lot of confidence that the sources are being interpreted correctly. It claims that it's a "type of cross-cutting...used in cinematography," when cross-cutting is actually an editing technique, and cinematography is the actual process of using a camera and lighting to film shots. It also misidentifies D. W. Griffith as a cinematographer when he was a film director. And if you read the whole article, you see that it's actually trying to describe "last-minute rescue" as a narrative device, not something unique to film (and probably just a typical suspense-increasing tactic, where the climax of any kind occurs at the proverbial "last minute" whether or not it involves a rescue or other action; see also Dramatic structure#Falling action). Particularly given that this started out as an attempt to describe a purported archetype and only shifted once it was pointed out in the AFD that "just-in-time-lad" was made up and not supported by the sources George claimed it was, it's clear that the very concept of the subject is confused in addition to the details.
So I see no reason to question or overturn the judgment of the AFD participants, and no reason to relist. George certainly shouldn't have come here with the "final edition of the article prior to be[ing] deleted", "still insisting that the article has no OR problems." If he's going to try to use his userspace copy to forum-shop an end run around AFD (as he did with the film Wikiproject) without actually addressing any of the reasons why it was deleted, I think the userfied version should be deleted as well. postdlf (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
postdif was the closing admin. in the AfD. What this means is that the result is not his opinion, it is merely his reading of the consensus. He read a consensus to delete, and closed the AfD as such. I do not question his actions. CycloneGU (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't, I do. Yes, I agree that "he read a consensus to delete, and closed the AfD as such". But, he did not stated nothing even barely close to "George, I was so tired when summarized AfD, but you can go to DRV. Good luck!", he decided that it will be better to ignore my request to userfy and to start to "bull" each other. – George Serdechny18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing postdif of editing in bad faith? Keep in mind that he is not going to advise one way or the other because that suggests that he has an opinion and would invalidate his close. If you were to inquire about protesting the close as he read it, he would be able to suggest deletion review. But prior to that he is not required to make the suggestion. CycloneGU (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I linked OR in my comments and here again if you need the definition. Unless you mean the article, let's let this appeal play out and see what others think. It might be appealable under the new name, but I'm not an expert in the subject. CycloneGU (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get back to things which "doesn't inspire postdlf with a lot of confidence that the sources are being interpreted correctly":
I've intended to define D. W. Griffith as a "cinemtographist", but the dictionary, which I use (slovari.yandex.ru - the most used in Russian part of the Web) showed up that there are no such word in English, while "cinematographer" is translated as "кинематографист" (translit.cinemtographist) and film-maker, respectively.
I've named article "just-in-time-lad" and made some other weak definitions, because it's only one year passed since I've started to study English and I've never been to English-speaking country before. You (as well as the others) were able to point it with teplates: [ambiguous], [when defined as?], etc. Deletion is actually the last thing to do with a new-made article. Did somebody used templates, or asked for clarification? – George Serdechny18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who initially tagged the original article for deletion, I want to point out that even if the article in question wasn't plagued by the question of OR, would the subject of the aticle even be noteworthy enough to stand alone as its own article? Most of the minor sections, such as "Deus Ex Machina" or the "In Other Cultures" section already have their own, much more comprehensive articles on Wikipedia. The vast majority of the remainder of the article is solely on D. W. Griffith's work. Even if the OR issues are cleared up, it would make a lot more sense to just integrate any actual relevent and fully sourced material from it into D. W. Griffith, rather than insisting this be its own article.Rorshacma (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We did not and do not discuss merging yet. Besides, I'm planning to expand the article, but only after it will be restored in the main space. – George Serdechny19:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. Expand the article where it is right now and prove it belongs in the namespace as its own article. We're not denying your contributions, as some can be used in other articles; the comment you are replying to is discussing whether this should be its own article. CycloneGU (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Urgent request: Instead of discussing my (or anybody's else) personal qualities/contributions/intentions and other miscellaneous things, can we go closer to the point (OR). Thanks. – George Serdechny19:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion review is to discuss whether the original close was correct and whether there is enough changes to the article to warrant overturning to keep or even relisting at AfD. Original research is not the only thing to be discussed. With that said, I would urge others from the AfD to bring up their points here. I will take the courtesy of notifying some of the participants as a neutral party. CycloneGU (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfD participants are not the "neutral party". There's no wonder that those who vote to delete the article without reading it, will skip any common sense arguments in order to erase even the single mention of this blunder. Of course you should notify them, and entire community as well. – George Serdechny19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I only had to notify one user; the rest were alerted by postdif to this review. Among my perusals I also noted this edit. Telling an administrator that his record willbe blemished by voicing his opinion on an article against your own opinion is not cool. If you are trying to get people to agree with you, this is not how to do it. Also, the entire community has a chance to participate in any AfD. These are the people who participated. Thus, it can be assumed they are most interested in this review. CycloneGU (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking in good faith, it sounds like you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Surely additional people will come in who tend to focus more on deletion reviews (I'm one of them). However, those involved in the AfD are also welcome to provide their comments in a deletion review as well. You cannot control that or tell them you don't want them here; if they want to comment, they will do so. CycloneGU (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've told you, I do not want these people to agree with me, cause I feel no need in such agreement, whether they will make any comments or not. I cannot control them and I never wanted to. – George Serdechny20:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. First and foremost, DRV is not intended to be a second-run AFD; there were no procedural errors during the AFD process and no reason to believe that the closing admin misinterpreted consensus or closed in a way incompatible with it. Generally speaking, that suggests there is no need to overturn here. Procedure aside, there really is nothing to suggest that this moves beyond original research -- specifically, it was a novel synthesis. The article, as it appeared in AFD, was well-referenced, but it was the article, not those references, making the connections. I applaud the efforts to improve the article during AFD, but that fundamental flaw appears inescapable. The article's author extensively cites critical analysis of D. W. Griffith. And, to be fair, there is plenty written about Griffith's "last minute rescues"[3][4][5][6]. That's the sort of thing that should certainly be discussed in Griffith's article, if it's not already (I haven't looked). There's enough coverage of the film concept that it might even earn a passage in climax (narrative) or deus ex machina. Maybe -- maybe -- even an article of its own, although I'm dubious. But that's not what the article we saw at AFD presented. The AFD article wasn't about a storytelling technique, it was about a character. It was an article that purported that the characters who perform those last-minute rescues, those climaxes, those deus ex machina constitute an archetype with independent notability. And I cannot source that connection or that claim. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"But that's not what the article we saw at AFD presented". That is not true. Here is a version of the article 3 days before it was deleted. Well, two and a half days, if precisely. Is there any comma or any single dot, which makes it different from the version, which we're discussing now? – George Serdechny20:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFD most certainly did not start with that version, as any admin with the ability to view the deleted content can attest to. The article, as it existed at the time of my AFD participation, referred to a "last-minute hero" in the lede and gave the general impression of discussing a stock character, as might be expected from the use of the stock characters template that continues even now. Now, according to its lede, it is an article about "a type of cross-cutting or inter-cutting used in cinematography." The protean nature of this article's topic does nothing to disguise the problems with original research and novel synthesis. The cited references do not describe any relationship between the cinematography of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Thief of Baghdad, or genre slapstick to the inter-cut style of D. W. Griffith (likely because those movies do not use that technique). The inclusion of a figure from the Qur'an in a article ostensibly (at the moment) about a cinematography technique underscores the reasons why the AFD participants uniformly felt the article fell short of policy expectations. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. In both the AfD and the article itself, the article creator made it quite clear that the stock character name ("just in time lad") was an irrelevance and could be changed. There is therefore no room to suggest that a revised character name makes any difference to the AfD opinion which was clearly and unabiguously expressed, so there is no convincing case to overturn its outcome. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and restore current userspace version An AfD that does not give a reasonable result is a wrongly closed AfD, and in view of the present user space article, I regard the result as clearly very wrong, and contrary to the plain documented facts of the subject. We're not a bureaucracy, so we can consider what we ought to do with the subject regardless of prior discussions. If we're looking for errors, apparently the close gave too much weight to completely erroneous claims of OR, to a failure to consider potential sourcability, and to changes made during the discussion. As no reason was given, as is the closer's general practice, it is impossible to be sure, thus my wording of "apparently" but they are the only factors which I think could have resulted in the decision. In particular, the failure to give a detailed rationale when the article changes leaves it unclear how well the close has been considered. The reason the closer gives here is that he disagrees with the contents of the article, about as wrong a reason for closing as can be imagined--such disagreements are for the article talk page. As others have noted, there seem to be two subjects here, and there should be two articles. I think the griffith technique so extremely well documented in the literature that it should be a separate article, and should be approached from that direction. The section "origin" in the current user space version is sufficient of a RS to establish the subject as notable, (I am truly astounded at the initial nomination as "hoax" ) and the remainder of the sourcing there is excellent. The "last-minute hero" should probably be a separate article, but I have not examined sourcing for it. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually been debating changing my opinion to relist due to the new title, but have not decided that for certain yet. However, where does postdif say his opinion in the AfD? CycloneGU (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My only opinion when I closed the AFD was "every participant but for the article creator credibly asserts that this article is OR," and even the creator conceded to some extent that he was making some things up or that the sources didn't support everything; that's at least part of why he keeps changing the article title and topic around. Really, this AFD stood out as an easy one to close, so whether or not I agreed with the participants it could not have been closed as anything but delete.
I formed my opinion and observations written above only after this DRV was listed, because I then reviewed the article and noticed for myself that the creator simply doesn't seem to know what basic film terms mean or how to use them. His response to my criticism above illustrates this well, in that he made an admittedly personal decision to define a technique as being used "in cinematography" even though the original source does not say that and it's contrary to what cinematography actually means. I understand that this difficulty comes at least in part because English is not his first language, so I don't doubt his good intentions here, but he isn't demonstrating a clear understanding of the subject matter or an ability to properly represent what the sources actually say. Which means that he might be better off taking some time to edit existing articles (and learn more about how Wikipedia works and how to work with other editors) rather than trying to start new ones where he isn't even clear on what the topic is and not fluent enough with English. Again, all of this except for "the clear consensus in the AFD was delete" is all post-DRV observations and conclusions.
I was also put off by him demanding that I userfy his article so he could nominate it for FA immediately after it was deleted at AFD, which I can chalk up again to a lack of understanding deletion policy and article standards, but unfortunately instead of him recognizing that maybe there's something he's not getting, he's refused to take others' criticisms and comments seriously. So as I said, I think he needs to spend more time actually learning how Wikipedia works by more small-scale, mundane editing, rather than jumping into the deep end and expecting unrealistic results. And maybe someone from Wikiproject film, for example, may be willing to mentor him if that's the area he wants to focus on. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to why it was initially nominated as a "Hoax", when I initially tagged it for Speedy Deletion, and then subsequenty as a AfD nomation, the article was nowhere near the form it is now. It was titled "Just-In-Time-Lad", and rather than focusing on Griffith, the whole thing was just a random collection of pop-culture references in the style of a TVTropes article. As I could find no resources to substantiate the claim that this was indeed a real term, I initially labeled it as a possible hoax, and definite OR. The pages author completely revamped the article during the AfD discussion, which is why it probably seems strange at this point as to why it was ever considered to be a flat out hoax. This probably has little to do with the current discussion, but I thought I would just clear that up for you.Rorshacma (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (again, see below CycloneGU (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)) - I'm not ready to approve it for the mainspace yet, but let's have a fresh, uncontroversial AfD based on the new title and new article. It's not perfect, but this user clearly is trying to work on it in good faith even with us all babbling on about original research. It seems this user, while he comes across a bit, er, opinionated at times, is trying in good faith to come up with an article here, and there is more merit to a discussion of where the content can be used if not in its own article. CycloneGU (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no doubt that the editor is working in good faith. There is an equal amount of doubt as to whether the article is entirely original synthesis. Dlabtot (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to the idea that some article produced from this could see mainspace at least to be relisted, but I'm not comfortable recommending that course of action until the article has a specifically defined topic and sticks to it. The current userspace situation, with a lede (and quite a bit of text) about a cinematography/film editing technqiue, but sections discussing movies that do not employ that technique, a passage about a figure in the Qur'an, and the stock characters template, perhaps left over from what originally showed up at AFD, doesn't fill me with a great deal of confidence that WP:SYN isn't still a live problem here. The whole purpose of userfication is so that the editor taking possession of the would-be article can attend to its flaws and get it mainspace-ready ... and, so far, this isn't. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to AfD. The deletion review part of this is easy, because the deletion for "Just-in-time lad" was conducted correctly and closed in accordance with the consensus. But, the deletion discussion for "Just-in-time lad" would have focused on the sources for that title. This is a different title, and therefore the sources will differ. It warrants a fresh discussion.
I'm not overjoyed about the accusations flying around here. Deletion Review is about content, and this is not the place to make accusations of bad faith against anyone. We don't have the power to enforce sanctions against editors and we don't make decisions on the basis of an editor's conduct. That kind of thing belongs on one of the drama boards.—S MarshallT/C10:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I see little connection between the version of the article now in the user's space and the version of the page I commented on in the AfD. Let's take the pieces in turn. I find no errors in the closure of the AfD discussion. The community consensus was clear. The one piece of contrary evidence (almost 17 million google hits) was rightly discounted because it was based upon a malformed search - the search returned hits with any of those three words. A google search on the exact phrase returns far fewer hits and the majority of those are false-positives and do not support the argument being made in the AfD. Edits were made to the page during the AfD discussion. The last two commentors reviewed the revised content (based upon the timestamps, one covering all changes and the other seeing all but the very last edit which changed the opening paragraph) and both explicitly commented that it remained original research. Even had all the prior opinions been discounted, that still would have been sufficient consensus to close as a "delete". I endorse closure of the AfD. Rewrites have continued since the restoration and movement to the userspace. A casual review would suggest that this page is so different that the normal course of editing (boldly post it and re-AfD if necessary) would be appropriate. However, since the question has been posed here, I can not endorse movement to the mainspace. The tone of the article has shifted from a neologism about a particular character archetype to a neologism about a particular plot twist. While the examples proving the existence of that plot device are well documented, there are no sources talking about the plot device. The draft also incorrectly attributes this literary technique to modern times when it actually traces back to, well, no one really knows - it was well-established by the time of the Greeks, though. This version still fails WP:SYN. Relisting would be pointless even to a process-wonk like me. Rossami(talk)22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have another problem here: copyvios. The first two paragraphs of this section are taken almost verbatim from this source. The third paragraph of that section is almost verbatim from this source. The fourth paragraph of that section is taken almost verbatim from this source... I first noticed it with the text cited in his userspace article to footnote three, p. 606 of Richard Abel's Encyclopedia of Early Cinema, here. Everything in the sentence after "According to Richard Abel, Professor...Arts" is a verbatim quote from that text. So he's literally copied and pasted text from different books together. This userspace page needs to be deleted, and the rest of his contributions reviewed for further copyvios. postdlf (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and it's not limited to this article by George Serdechny: compare this with this. I don't have time to follow up further right now, but this obviously needs more investigation and a removal of all the infringing texts. postdlf (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the first paragraph starting a copyvio at the bottom of page 36 of that source, and paragraph 2 leads in around page 38. I lost track soewhere in the middle of that paragraph. The third and fourth paragraphs I have not specifically found. Can you give us page numbers of these? Once these are proven, the entire section immediately needs to be deleted without haste and I would perhaps the page speedied out of sight so the copyvios are permanently deleted from the history. CycloneGU (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence of the third paragraph is a nearly verbatim copy beginning with the last word on p. 62 here and continuing on 63 ("Griffith interspersed shots of Danton..."). The first sentence is also from p. 62 of that source as well, though more edited ("the film chronicles the misadventures...their separation before and during the French Revolution, culminating...").
The fourth paragraph is from beginning on p. 120 ("...a relatively truncated version of the last minute rescue...Even so, Griffith employs both editing..."). Note that these are only the portions of the text I searched for, and all of them turned out to be lifted; I have not checked the entire article, so I can't say this is it, and as I noted above, at least part of another article he posted also has text lifted verbatim from a source. postdlf (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Closure - At this time, in light of the evidence brought up above, I am going to request a closure of this DRV by an uninvolved admin. An article with copyvios lifted and embedded inside should not be present on Wikipedia. I will also request the user's working copy deleted and the user's editing privileges blocked temporarily until we can determine whether any other copyvios have taken place that have not yet been found. CycloneGU (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody knows that any copyvio can be reworked in a few minutes. And you know why I've copied it without any changes? Because I knew for sure that even after the artcile has been rewritten completely, it will be still framed with OR. Now the truth surfaced and yet nobody took back allegations of original research. You know how it looks like? It looks like: "Delete it! Delete it! For God's Sake! Delete it!". What's up, uneasy conscience betrays itself? – George Serdechny07:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, last post before I head to bed: I found copyvios elsewhere in the article, not just the Griffith section: In User:George_Serdechny/Last-minute_rescue#Slapstick, the last three sentences of that section are taken verbatim, though out of order, from the second paragraph on p. xxii of this source ("the last-minute rescue in Slapstick comedies is not brought about by divine intervention or melodramatic coincidence..." + "The games slapstick comedy performs take place on the brink of the abyss..."). postdlf (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Note to reviewer: No need in urgent closure. Quick "switch" from OR to CV haven't been settled yet. When other discussants, who stated that the article is an OR, will confirm that it is not an original research and stands far from original research, I will rework copyvio in a single edit (I've stored a reworked version, cause I knew that this moment will come). – George Serdechny07:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your statement "I've stored a reworked version, cause I knew that this moment will come", so you've knowingly put up a copyvio version? You have a version which is (in your view) non-copyvio, but wanted to wait until found out to fix it? Why put something you know is wrong in expecting to be found out? Why wait to be found out to resolve it? If it's there waiting now, why haven't you fixed it now having been found out? This makes absolutely no sense. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a total strawman, this isn't about if this is OR or not, this is about constructing a Copyright Violation. If you are saying you constructed an article which was a copyvio to make a point about OR, that is in itself a problem. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've constructed an edition of the article, which was already tagged for deletion as an OR, and eventually deleted as OR. I did not create the article from copyrighted material, from the very beginning. It's two big differences and I hope you can distinguish between them. The problem is the unwillingness of the group of users to reconsider their previous statements and mistakes. – George Serdechny09:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you added copyvio material, knowing that it was copyvio material in order to make a WP:POINT then. Essentially from your comments at the AFD and your comments here are further into troll territory than reasoned debate. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again a strawman, no one has said every single comment you've made is troll like, but your continued strawmen here, apparent desire to sweep the copyvio issue under the carpet and continued the evasion of answering direct questions on the issue is still far from constructive discussion. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia means by "original research". An author can have clear citations to facts A, B and C but still be committing original research if he/she then uses them to conclude D when no published sources have previously concluded D. That's the "synthesis" part of original research. Even if all the underlying facts are true, it is not an encyclopedia's place to be the first entity to make the conclusions that go beyond those bare facts. Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. Rossami(talk)14:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, he's taken different paragraphs from different works by different film critics and historians, lumped them together out of context and without clearly identifying them as the [verbatim] opinions and analysis of these particular scholars, and added a bit of a gloss (factually incorrect in its use and application of terms, as I noted above) purporting to tie it all together. Which is why it all read as disjointed and sliding from one subject to another, despite the coherence within certain individual paragraphs. postdlf (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the copyvio deal is resolved, isn't it? So the question arising, was there a need in shouting "delete it! delete it!". It's a rhetorical, so you are freed from answering it. – George Serdechny08:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suspension in debates: My working day and working week came to an end (it's a Friday and it's a short day today), so I congratulate everyone with the upcoming International Labour Day and I'll see you soon after the May Days. Of course, everyone interested is able to see the final version of the article 3 days before it was deleted and decide to him(her)self whether or not it was an original research ; as well as everybody interested is free and encouraged to continue the discussion if he or she wants to, but temporarily without me. Cheers! – George Serdechny09:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I think it laughable that the person responsible for the copyvio article is taking the weekend off. I think it would be wise to finish this up before he gets back and send the message that this is not acceptable. CycloneGU (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
