Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT

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: delete. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT

The page is in breach of WP:NOTWEBHOST. The user is clearly using Wikipedia to host their dissertation for self-promotion purposes. When challenged on this at ANI their response here is that it is what to share their professional background with other editors. Having 166kb of the entirety of their dissertation goes well beyond that. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have AGF'd on "self promotion". I don't know whether that's the case or not. But motivation is irrelavant: it's still a blatant case of using WP as a web hosting. DeCausa (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can the material be moved to Wikisource? Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep without opposition to transferring to Wikisource. A big "meh" from me. We generally afford wide latitude to users, once they've demonstrated they're WP:HERE, to include a variety of information about themselves in userspace. All the more if it's relevant to their editing areas of interest -- which seems to be the case here. "Here's my dissertation" seems a lot more relevant to Wikipedia than a pile of "this user is really into anime" userboxes, which are typically uncontroversial even for extreme collections. What self-promotion is this accomplishing? User pages aren't even indexed. And what would be the difference if it were hosted on Wikisource in terms of promotionalism? 168kb will not be freed up on the Wikipedia servers if this is deleted -- a new revision will simply be added to the space it occupies. It's a lot more autobiography than I'd choose to include on Wikipedia, certainly, and I find it in slightly poor taste, but thankfully I don't have to read it if I don't want to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "autobiography"? There's no aurobiography. It's purely using Wikipedia as a hosting platform for a work. Nothing more, nothing less. It couldn't get more on point for WP:NOTWEBHOST if it tried. DeCausa (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also "User pages aren't even indexed". He's added the Index markup at the top of the page so he's gone out of his way to make sure it is indexed. DeCausa (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. That policy says that posting a résumé is not acceptable in userspace, and this is way beyond that. Hosting a raw text dump of a PhD thesis isn't providing a foundation for effective collaboration. It doesn't provide anything, really. Discussions on Wikipedia aren't arguments from authority; if I posted my PhD thesis here and tried to win an argument by pointing to it and saying that I'm a physicist so I must be right, that would be silly. A PhD thesis isn't even a type of source that is of use to us. All of the legitimate reasons to know the educational background and credentials of an editor are satisfied by a statement like "I graduated from X University with a doctorate in Y". I don't really care whether the page was intended to be self-promotional or not (though it does contain the __INDEX__ override and does appear in Google results for, e.g., "drbogdan" site:en.wikipedia.org). I'm willing to believe that it was posted without intent to self-glorify, but it's not a valid use case for userspace. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. We cite PhD theses all the time, but they have to be used carefully, and there's no proscription against using them here. Also, in recent years, many dissertations are falling behind paywalls, so Wikisource should be used to host them as much as possible. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikisource. XOR'easter (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions:

1. Seems the "_index_" code was entirely unintentional - and originally part of a template I may have used (via copy-paste) at the time - should this be removed? - are there other similar codes to be removed or adjusted on the page? - or other such pages?

2. Should the page be moved to WP:Wikisource (or some other subpage - or elsewhere on Wikipedia)? - if so, how can this be done - this is all new to me at the moment.

- Drbogdan (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Blatant violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Within standard leeway for a 17 years editor with over 60,000 mainspace contributions. This recent issue is under discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Drbogdan,_persistent_low-quality_editing,_and_WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK_issues, let it play out there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "standard leeway" for policy violations. Nor is this a "recent issue", as the examples I provided in the linked discussion already indicate. Nor does that discussion need to conclude before we can come to a judgment about this particular item. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s *possible* that he believes that dumping his scholarly thesis on his Userpage is for the benefit of the project, and in time he’ll clean it up to make its purpose clearer. I don’t accept that it is a slam dunk NOTWEBHOST violation, as opposed to an odd thing to do. The behavioural and persistence aspects are appropriately being discussed at ANI, and I think this MfD should wait for the ANI thread to conclude. 17 years and 60000 mainspace contributions gets him some leeway, and he should not be persecuted on two fronts simultaneously. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of what he believes. Either NOTWEBHOST applies or it doesn't. Also, although this user page was highlighted at ANI, the place to determine whether it should be deleted can only b here not ANI. The ANI thread is dealing with other issues and MfD is outside its remit.DeCausa (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of his beliefs lies in NOTWEBHOSTING being a behavioural violation, “hosting” being a verb that requires intent for it to be used for non-project purposes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strange interpretation. It doesn't say that at all. DeCausa (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WEBHOSTING, note “ING”, implies evidence should include unusual pageviews or external links to it. I don’t think this is WEBHOSTING, it’s just a bad use of a userpage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not a web host, a journal, or Linkedin. Just not what an encyclopedia is for. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As OA of this material, no problem whatsoever whatever the final WP:CONSENSUS of course - my professional dissertation was presented to provide a basis to evaluate my professional background - as noted (in detail and in context) at a recent ANI discussion, the material is not in main space - it is in user space instead, and available for those wishing to evaluate my professional background for any of my edits on Wikipedia - as before, such presentations seem to be a worthy way of sharing relevant professional background of editors to other editors (and other Wikipedia readers) - seems if other editors did the same with their professional background, might help a lot imo - nonetheless - if there is WP:CONSENSUS about this - no problem whatsoever of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice post. I'm ambivalent. Yeah at times it might be nice to know someone's subject area expertise. OTOH, we are so laser focused on reliable sources there might be times it's distracting. Rather judge someone based on the framing of their arguments along with their knowledge and use of reliable sources, which will become apparent if they are an expert and reasonably unbiased, rather than their CV. I tend to avoid articles in my own subject areas. Best, O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, put it on a subpage, and give an explanation for its purpose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: (and others) - Thanks for your suggestion re putting this on a subpage - but isn't it already on a subpage at User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT ( see => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=User%3ADrbogdan%2F&namespace=0 ) ? - seems it's already in user space - as a subpage? - sorry but I'm somewhat new to some of this - iac - Thanks for any help with this - Drbogdan (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re somewhat new to this?? You’ve been here for 17 years. You should have some idea of what is the purpose of a userpage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - seems I've been mostly busy in other Wikipedia areas (articles,templates,Wiktionary,WikiSpecies,WikiQuote,Simple,etc) over the years - seems the notion of a "subpage" may have been overlooked somehow - my first thought very recently is that a "subpage" and a "sandbox page" may be the same thing but guess I may be wrong about this - Thanks in any case for your comment - Drbogdan (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as web hosting:
- - There are conduct issues about the originator, pending at WP:ANI, and content issues, about this page and another page in user space. Only the keeping or deleting of the user pages is within scope at MFD, and only this page is within the scope of this discussion.
  - I am willing to assume good faith and assume that the originator thinks that posting or hosting this is in the interest of the encyclopedia. However, an editor's opinion that web hosting is in the interests of the encyclopedia is not dispositive. The community should decide what is in the interests of the encyclopedia, and should decide that the user is mistaken in good faith.
  - I respectfully disagree with the idea that "standard leeway" is given to established users for policy violations, even if unintentional.
  - No objection to cross-wikifying.
  - The editor should be allowed to provide an external link from his user page to his dissertation on an external host, or a cross-wiki link from his user page to Wikisource.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rhododendrites and SmokeyJoe. There is a plausible-enough argument that having this content in his userspace will benefit other editors. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as web hosting. --wound theology ◈ 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're don't host blog entries or news stories, I don't see this any different than other WEBHOST issues. Beyond that, using it as a claim of professional expertise (when there's an open AN thread demonstrating that their expertise is not stopping them from being a disruptive influence) feels like an attempt to appeal to authority rather than the strength of arguments. There's nothing stopping someone from linking to their dissertation or relevant materials; we don't need to have it on-wiki. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-wiki: Any research that is released into CC/PD should be moved over to Wikisource. I concur that this is likely inappropriate for WP, but straight deletion is far too hasty. Curbon7 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could I clarify what you mean by that? As far as I know, moving to Wikisource is not an outcome that can be determined at Wikipedia. It's a separate wiki and we have no jurisdiction over what happens there. Someone needs to take the initiative to post it at Wikisource - and that's not something that can be determined here. It's an independent and parallel outcome to what happens here at MfD/Wikipedia. All that can be decided here is that it should be removed from WP. Does anyone think that's not the case? DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I agree - moving to WikiSource is *entirely* ok with me - is this something I (or some other) could/should do? If so, is there some process/procedure to do this? - WikiSource is very new to me at the moment - thanks for any help with this - Drbogdan (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably the creator gets it hosted over there prior to close and then we can either delete or soft redirect this sandbox. Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource, if it can be done, otherwise delete. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an abuse of Wikipedia: not in the least serving the purpose ow Wikipedia, just wasting its space. - Altenmann >talk 17:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.