Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranoid administrator

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paranoid administrator

Appears to be entirely POV original research — it appeared in whole cloth in a single edit. The Google test shows ~750 articles with the term paranoid administrator, but virtually all of them use the term as a standard English adjective-noun combination (e.g., "...a paranoid administrator..."), not as a compound noun. The external links do not serve as references for this term — they instead all point at ways to get around a "paranoid administrator". Full disclosure: I am a professional system administrator and would consider the tactics mentioned in the article "amateurish", not "paranoid". N.B.: this might be a case of WP:Bite; this appears to be the first substantive edit by Bob2000 (talk · contribs).

TreyHarris 06:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, please hastily proceed to deletion then! But this is a case of the bites indeed. I did look up and read lengthy instructions on what not to post before deciding to put this definition, and found no trace of "original research" as a no-no. Prior to submitting a new article, there isn't much warning about that except on WP:NOT. May I suggest that "soapbox" is not a well-understood term in the meaning with which it is used?

I agree with the original research label, but not with the POV label. As a professional computer & networking security expert, it appears to me that the patterns described in the article are certainly well-spread and based on observation--even if "paranoid" may not exactly be the right term to sum it up. I grant you that this article is far from perfect, but professional systems administrators like you would certainly have been able to amend it. I think there is room for a consensus to build around this concept.

While I understand and respect that Wikipedia's opinion is different on this matter, for me an enclopedia's role, as was the Encyclopédie, is not only to bring consensual knowledge, but also to publish original works of reason. I'm a bit disappointed.

--User:Bob2000

I think you've hit on one of the exact problems that led to WP:NOR. I think it's POV. You don't. But you coined the term the article is about, so how can anyone but you make the call? Maybe giving you control of the article's content is an okay situation — until you go away for awhile, and then the article goes stale, or somebody else comes along and claims that they invented the term "paranoid administrator" and they know what it means.... Please don't take this personally: if others can't do the same research you can, then it's not something that can make a Wikipedia article. Perhaps someone can point you at a wiki for original works. --TreyHarris 16:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally. I understand the rationale behind the rule. Bob2000 18:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. First seemed to be a candidate for BJAODN, but turned to be mere original research. - Sikon 10:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 16:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, neither much original nor really research. I would call it drivel. Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless Robertbrockway 23:54, 27 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.