Morten7an

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mahmoud Abdulaziz has been accepted

Mahmoud Abdulaziz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ! Morten7an (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Peter Norton (historian)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Peter Norton (historian) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://engineering.virginia.edu/faculty/peter-norton. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Onel5969 ^{[[User talk:Onel5969]|TT me]]} 14:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, User:Onel5969, as I feel there shoud be an article about him. I am very aware of the rules, and do not copy text from other pages, so that it can resemble copyright infringement. Furthermore I cannot see from the log of my contributions, that I was indeed an editor of the article (?). The article itself with history is gone, so hard to check. I realise that speedy deletion is part of standard procedure, that has been approved by a group of experienced users, but it still will be experienced by many as an overreaction. So the message could be softer, especially as it seems to go out to others than the perpetrators (?). I see the following text in the article that you linked to on speedy deletion: Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Alternatives to deletion). Less than two hours after the notice came on impending speedy deletion, the page was gone. (I learned through looking at the docuumentation for deletions, that the deletion itself was carried out by somebody else). Morten7an (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If admin User:Jimfbleak does not want to undelete, perhaps it can be moved/copied to a sandbox? Morten7an (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I see now that I am recorded as the author, according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Peter+Norton+%28historian%29. Without the 'hard facts' before us, though, it is difficult to discuss the merits of deletion. Regardless of that I am certain that his work is important, has been referred to in several publications, and should be covered on Wikipedia in some form.Morten7an (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969:. Morten7an, you indeed appear to be the creator of the article, all the substantive edits were made by you. I didn't delete as G12 because the Earwig check showed less than 40% copied. I deleted as G11 because the poorly sourced article seemed to have little purpose than to promote him and his book. There is nothing to show that he meets the WP:Notability (academics) criteria or that the book meets WP:Notability (books). The sources are

• his own university website, including the claim of an award, which should be sourced to the awarding body, not him. In any case, neither the awarding body nor the prize seem to have Wikipedia articles, so of dubious importance
• Google scholar
• Zipper's interview with him, hardly an independent source

Not a reason for deletion, but his journal article don't appear to name the journal(s), and the book doesn't have a publisher or ISBN number Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain, User:Jimfbleak. Here is a recent article from New York Times (incidentally readable through the wayback machine), which refers to his ideas and links to other articles dealig with his ideas: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/technology/electric-vehicles-driverless-cars.html I can't help being dismayed by the speedy deletion, and a bit discouraged from contributig to Wikipedia, especially in English. I cannot grasp the strictness and speed of the judgement, compared to the quality of a host of other artcles, and not least the extensive coverage on Wikipedia of what one could label as trivia, panem et circensis. Morten7an (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

About 1-2 months ago I found the page about me [Peter Norton (historian)] by chance. It was a pleasant surprise! I thank Morten7an for the interest, and Jimfbleak for commitment to Wikipedia's integrity. To address some questions that have been raised: about the award, both the awarding body (Society for the History of Technology) and the award itself (Abbot Payson Usher Prize) have their own substantial and long-established Wikipedia pages; the page for the prize identifies me by name (under 2007). Some other winners of the prize (e.g. Edward Jones-Imhotep) with books of comparable notability have Wikipedia pages. The journals in which my articles have been published have long-established and substantial Wikipedia pages too (esp. Technology and Culture). Wikipedia's criteria for notability of academics specify: "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable" ("any one" is bolded); in the list that follows, multiple criteria verifiably apply (including, for example, the Usher prize, which is well recognized by Wikipedia). Wikipedia's criteria for notability of books similarly specifies: "A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria" ("one" is bolded). At a minimum, two of the listed criteria apply and are easily verifiable online; for example, both of my books have been referenced in New York Times articles; Fighting Traffic has been referenced in dozens of other national and global publications, in English, German, Italian, French, and other languages. An online search will also confirm that Fighting Traffic has been assigned in numerous college classes. The books' publishers and ISBN numbers are as follows: [Fighting Traffic: MIT Press / 978-0262516129]; [Autonorama: Island Press / 978-1642832402]. I'm most grateful for the time and attention that you both have given this matter. My thanks to you both! Norton (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Norton I'll post here to keep the conversation in one place. It's not enough to be notable, we have to have proper sources, and if you read above, you will see why I deleted this article. It was only sourced to websites associated with, or quoting you, and claims like the best scholarly work published during the preceding three years... are bound to be seen as promotional if they are sourced to your own university page, as is the claimed award.

The claim to notability is not unequivocal, see WP:Notability (academics), but I'd give that the benefit of the doubt.

The fact that other articles have not been deleted doesn't help you, either they met the criteria or should be deleted as well. See What about article x?.

Since the article isn't a serious copyright violation, I'm prepared to restore it as a draft for improvement if requested, but Morten7an seems to have washed his hands of it, and it's probably not a great idea for you to edit it, although you are entitled to do so. If you do wish to edit it, you mustn't move it from draft to article space yourself.

Notifying Onel5969 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to say that I accept it's not self-written. The vast majority of biographies are self-written, but I can see that's not the case here, I retract that statement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Jimfbleak. I agree that the article needs repair. You've been persuasive on that point. My point was not to disagree with this, but rather to request that Morten7an or other editors be extended the opportunity to address the deficiencies you identified. Morten7an apparently already located needed sources (e.g. NYT), judging from his comments. Morten7an or another editor can cut "best scholarly work published during the preceding three years years," though on this point he is merely quoting the association's own definition of the prize [1] - though of course the original source should be cited. I do not claim notability for myself, and never would, but the notability criteria offer no grounds for overruling Morten7an's assessment. To be fair to Morten7an, the last word we had from this editor is a clear request to restore the page, a request s/he has not withdrawn. I don't think we can fairly interpret Morten7an's silence over the last week as satisfaction. So I do request that the article be restored, as s/he requested. I would not attempt to move the article myself, and I am no self promoter. I have no wish to edit the article either, though I can add missing source citations if no other editor (such as Morten7an) does so first. Thank you for your commitment to standards. Wikipedia users such as me are better off thanks to the conscientious attention of people like you. Norton (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Norton: Fair enough, I'll restore it as a draft. I will post here when I have done so, but it is likely to be tomorrow, since it's evening here and a roast chicken and Rioja are my immediate priority (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, User:Jimfbleak! I can well imagine that with all the self promotion out there, anyone reviewing new articles about living people has their work cut out for them, to say the least. Readers certainly don't want Wikipedia cluttered up like that. You have a fine meal in store – bon appetit! Norton (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Jimfbleak and Norton! I will gladly make improvements to the article, and will be happy receive assistance in finding source citations. I guess, considering this interchange, that it will be appropriate to tag you on the talk page of the draft, before publishing as a regular Wikipedia-page.Morten7an (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Peter Norton (historian). @Norton:. Good idea Morten7an Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)