Griberg

Proposed deletion of International Resources for the Improvement of Sight

The article International Resources for the Improvement of Sight has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Apparently non-notable charity. None of the independent references in the article actually mention the charity. Nothing in google except for a few charities databases, which suggest that it's Cambodian focused, rather than the international focus of the article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice. IRIS is an organization which operates in south and south/east Asia, not only Cambodia. It's an incredibly important organization providing a vital support to some of the less fortunate living in the region. As the organization appears to suffer from a limited web presence, it is crucial that the organization continues to be listed in Wikipedia. Instead of deleting the article, I suggest that the one who added the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice in the first place, instead spends some time to develop the article. Many thanks for your understanding. Griberg 12:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of International Resources for the Improvement of Sight for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Resources for the Improvement of Sight is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Resources for the Improvement of Sight until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A General Theory of Violence moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to A General Theory of Violence. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it appears to be an original research essay. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 18:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: A General Theory of Violence (November 5)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Goldsztajn was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Wikipedia cannot publish material which is original research.

Goldsztajn (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Griberg! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Goldsztajn (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Insecurity Insight for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Insecurity Insight is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insecurity Insight until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Goldsztajn (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:A General Theory of Violence

Dear Griberg, there is no difference between revision 1183594493 where you were asked to address original research concerns and revision 1192459974, the revision where you moved it to mainspace yourself. You haven't addressed the issues of the AfC reviewer, namely that this is original research and needs to be cited by sources which verify the claims you make. If you believe this is the right title, then you need to cite multiple reliable, independent sources which specifically say "A General Theory of Violence". I also strongly recommend to go through the WP:AfC process again when you think the draft is ready to be reviewed again, as it will reduce the chance of being moved back to a draft again if approved. Darcyisverycute (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Darcyisverycute, thank you for the response. In the revised version (revision 1192459974) there is actually a new reference in the very first sentence pointing to teaching material published by the University of Lucerne, which cites the theory, specifically referring to it as “a general theory of violence.” Can you please help me understand why this is not considered to be a reliable source? It’s not original research. Moreover, if you look through the other references I have included in the article, when describing the origins of the theory and its application, you will see that these references are either pointing to definitions provided by the World Health Organization, or to academic research publications in which the theory of violence has been applied as a data gathering tool. All these references appear to be compatible with Wikipedia’s requirements for reliable, independent sources. I would greatly appreciate if you could dive into this subject with me and help to publish the article (I think it's a very important topic). What do you think of including the most recent reference to the theory (as far as I’m aware!) - a recent report published by the Cyber Peace Institute (see page 11 and onwards)? Thank you very much. Best, Isaac Griberg (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Griberg, the Lucerne link is to a website with a couple of paragraphs and a ten minute video. There is no evidence of peer review, and the source itself states the theory is not theirs, The Theory of Violence presented by Dr. Robin Coupland, Dr. Daniel Dobos, and Prof. Dr. Nathan Taback (University of Toronto) relates to any form of violence in any context. The Coupland citation you used in the draft is an offline source that I don't have access to, so it is impossible for me to verify this source. The Lucerne source then states It is, therefore, a general theory of violence. -- implying that the original theory was not proposed under this name. At best, this is a primary source, as the Lucerne source is the only one that refers to it under this description. Due to lacking peer review or journal publication, I do not see the Lucerne video as a reliable source. In other words that means you would need to find two additional sources, published in peer reviwed journals, with independent authors and significant coverage of Lucerne's take on the theory and the specific name.

The references pointing to the WHO definition of violence, which is used at the violence article, are generally unrelated to Lucerne and Toronto's work as far as I can tell. I encourage you to consider this - what content is it that you are trying to publish that would not better belong at the existing violence Wikipedia article instead?

The Cyberpeace source you sent here is independent and reliable, but it is arguably not significant coverage as it only devotes two paragraphs to describing the theory. Because of this, it cannot be used to establish WP:GNG for Lucerne's theory/claim.

Lastly, I noticed the Lucerne video featured the image File:A General Theory of Violence.png, and that image uploaded to Wikimedia commons says that you created that image. Either you also created the image in the Lucerne video too, which would mean you have a conflict of interest, or you have incorrectly attributed copyright information for the image. As far as I can tell it was not licensed under a Wikimedia Commons compatible license in the video description (see commons:Licensing). I also notice that the video was produced by, among others, Isaac Griberg, and I cannot help but notice your username. Are you being paid to write this article? Please also see WP:DISCLOSE. Darcyisverycute (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)