Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 21

21 June 2006

Be bold, Be Bold

Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#Be bold .E2.86.92 Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages

This decision was recently closed as "redirected to boldness", a change from the old redirect target Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. While I understand the logic of that decision, I would like to have the decision re-evaluated.

There are approximately 3000 inbound links (~ 1500 to Be bold and ~ 1500 to Be Bold). I can't claim to have evaluated every one of those links but so far, I have found none that refers to the general concept of boldness. Every example I've checked so far was a clear reference to the Wikipedia policy.

I am unconvinced by the arguments made during the discussion that cross-namespace redirects are inherently bad. I can find no basis for that reaction in our existing policies. I concede that the boldness article contains a disambiguation link to the relevant policy. If there were an even split of inbound links, it would be reasonable to establish a presumption that the link should point to the general topic over the Wikipedia-space page. But in this specific case, the decision seems out of balance. Why are we choosing to require every interested reader to sort through the disambiguation when every instance points to a single topic? Even for a process-wonk like me, this seems like a case where principle was allowed to trump practicality.

The straight vote-count leaves an ambiguous result. I count 4 "keep as is" to 4 "keep as changed target". Only the nominator argued to "delete".

Note: This is not technically a deletion decision. If there is a better forum to reconsider the closure of this decision, please let me know and I will move the request. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Revert. As bad as cross-namespace redirects supposedly are, it is far worse to have a redirect going to the patently wrong place. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • All of the old, bad redirects have been fixed. Care to revise your opinion now that it's pointing at the patently right place? --Cyde↔Weys 04:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Revert I couldn't find a single link that wasn't on a talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 19:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Revert. "Be bold" within Wikipedia is almost exclusively meant to refer to WP:BOLD. If that changes, fine, but in the meantime can we please make this minor concession to usability? Captainktainer * Talk 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do not Revert. When people search for things, they should find encyclopedia content, not project content. WP:BOLD is what people can use to find the project stuff. This is litter in the namespace. --Improv 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I found one instance of actual namespace use (as opposed to talk/user page use) and piped it. It was still a ref to WP:BOLD but on the Ukraine portal, which is a mess in itself. ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Revert per WP:IAR (I hate having to invoke it, because it's a huge can of worms, but it fits this case perfectly). jgp (T|C) 21:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Revert - Who on earth searches for "Be Bold" on Wikipedia and expects to end up at boldness. WP:COMMONBLOODYSENSE - Hahnchen 21:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I dunno, considering how Wikipedia is an encyclopedia you might think people searching for stuff on Wikipedia would be looking for an actual article, not meta-commentary on the construction of the encyclopedia. Anyone who thinks that this term should be pointing at Wikipedia stuff rather than an actual encyclopedia article has forgotten about the fundamental goals of the project. --Cyde↔Weys 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why don't we just point the redirect to main page, that's going to be just as relevant to whoever is searching as a link to boldness for anyone searching for be bold. So apparently ease of use and common sense don't feature into the encyclopedia that people have mentioned here. As I mentioned before, I was more shocked that the outcome of the original RFD was a ridiculous compromise failing to satisfy either argument. Either be bold should be a redlink like be aware, be left out, be insane or it should link to the only possible useful page, WP:BOLD. But no, in case someone wants to make an article on it for some future advertising, we better redirect it to boldness, because that is somehow relevent? Why don't we delete the redirect at young people to youth because there's a film of the same name and redirects might scare them off? - Hahnchen 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
      • We can redlink it. So long as there's no cross-namespace linking going on. --Cyde↔Weys 18:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Redlink would be acceptable. Still not my first choice, but an acceptable compromise. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Absolutely, I'd prefer a redlink over the groupthink compromises people had come up with. - Hahnchen 18:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Revert and redirect to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: At this point in the discussion, the discussion was prematurely closed. That closure decision was discussed on Talk. Per that discussion, I am reopening the deletion review request.
  Several very good points were made on both sides of this debate in the Talk page discussion. I attempted to merge those comments into a single discussion thread here but ultimately decided that I was not doing the original speakers justice and request that they bring their comments here in their own words. Thank you for your consideration. Rossami (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and revert, there are rules, and there are ignore all rules. I think the latter applies for this case. And enough people are calling for a revert, so simply speedy-closing this without reverting is wrong, IMO. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If "ignore all rules" is the best justification you can come up, with's to stop me from ignoring all rules and just closing this deletion review right now? --Cyde↔Weys 04:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Cyde, calm down please. I like you, but I'm beginning to see why other people often accuse you of being incivil. Anyways, I don't like invoking it either, but here, ignore all rules applies to using common sense rather than following rules to the letter. In my opinion, redirecting this to Wikipedia:Be bold makes more common sense than following the rule of the letter and redirecting this to boldness. In fact, I'd rather have this not redirect anyway rather than redirecting it to such a stupid target. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you're over-reacting. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of trying to use WP:IAR as a justification for anything. IAR is something you do. Apparently common sense differs, because to me it makes no sense whatsoever to redirect a phrase someone might legitimately be looking for an article on to some obscure meta-commentary on editing Wikipedia. Now I guess my preferred redirect target would be to Ford, what with their new national advertising campaign, but DRV is hardly the place to deal with stuff like this. --Cyde↔Weys 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, to use another term I am normally loathe to invoke, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I really don't see someone doing a search for "Be bold" and thinking of something other than Wikipedia. "Be bold" is a term most often associated with Wikipedia, not with an (arguably) obscure term like boldness. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC) (Oh, and I do apologise if I overreacted)
          • "Be bold" is only a term "most often associated" with Wikipedia for those who are associated with Wikipedia. Google of "be bold" returns 2,290,000 hits. Google of "be bold" -wiki returns 1,700,000 hits. -- JLaTondre 15:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Point taken. Is "be bold" still most commonly associated with "boldness"? I don't think so. If anything, boldness should be redirecting to be bold, not the other way around. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Boldness as a concept is much more general than the specific suggestion to "be bold", so the the redirects are set the appropriate way they are now. Boldness is just the noun form of the adjective bold, which is much more common than the instruction to be bold. --Cyde↔Weys 17:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Wikipedia doesn't have any policies or styles regarding the use of nouns (and noun phrases) over other types. I don't think the term "boldness" is really all that common, certainly not as common as "bold" or "be bold". But that's my opinion. To be honest, I really couldn't care less to seriously argue about what redirects where, just the original argument about whether it's okay to redirect cross-namespace in this case. I think it does, and I won't be changing my mind here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • I think it's located at Boldness rather than Bold because the latter refers to bold typefaces. --Cyde↔Weys 18:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Change to a soft redirect - that way, people using the term are encouraged to use the correct WP namespace link, but 3000 links aren't going to go somewhere useless. BigDT 14:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• overturn & revert': Per Deathpheonix, et al. Ombudsman 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong endorse deletion. IAR only applies to a point- here RfD decided that the rule should be followed, so that's not a valid reason to undelete. A soft redirect is unnecessary, there's a {{selfref}} template at boldness anyway. Boldness is a good target; considering Ford's new ad campaign, it's not inconceivable that a reader might enter that into the search bar. I'll orphan it if requested. --Rory096 23:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and revert. I strongly disagree with the assertion that RfD decided the rule should be followed. At the time of closure, the comments were 4 people saying Keep and 5 saying change target. If it were a vote, that would be an AFD result of "no consensus, keep". The person who initially made the best argument for keeping had changed their mind, but there were others that had said keep per that argument before he changed his mind, so the argument remained in play as a keep argument. The RfD was closed far faster than many others - nine days later, the immediately prior and immediately subsequent RfD are still open! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRBerry (talk • contribs)
  • One of the keeps was per someone who was saying change target after his keep opinion was completely refuted. Another was clearly misguided, not knowing about shortcuts, and probably thought this was the only way to get to the page without typing it all in. Another had commented before the suggestion to change the target, saying that normally he'd want to change the target, but he couldn't think of one. The last made the same point in another RfD where he was completely refuted. The closure was valid. --Rory096 04:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If it were a vote, that would be an AFD result of "no consensus, keep". But it's not and it never will be a vote, so there goes that argument. Afd isn't a vote either by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 04:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • And if you'd read the rest of my comment, you'd realize that that was a minor point a more important point was that the best argument for keeping was still in play. Finally, the major point was that this was closed too soon and therefore needs to be overturned regardless of the strength of the arguments at the time it was closed. GRBerry 12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
      • You might want to hang out on WP:RFD a bit more ... five days is hardly too soon. Most discussions there are closed within a few days of opening. It's actually a very streamlined, efficient system. All we're dealing with there is redirects, not articles, so it's unnecessary to wait so long before simply fixing the redirects. And process wonking for process wonking's sake is never a good idea. --Cyde↔Weys 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Revert (2nd comment) - I tried to be bold and revert this, but it was awesomely protected against doing so. This is absolutely ridiculous and the original RFD came up with the stupidest groupthunk solution ever. The only reason anything links to Be bold is because of WP:BOLD, absolutely anyone searching for be bold wants WP:BOLD. But oh no, cross space redirects must be deleted because of all these reasons which apply in different cases, we must apply this here too. No you don't. Either the redirect should be plain deleted as its useless, just like be ridiculous, be stupid, be lacking in common sense are redlinks, than so should be bold. Or you redirect it to the only useful page, which is WP:BOLD. I mean the Soft redirect vote above, think about what you're suggesting, you're suggesting that we adopt a no-win all-lose solution in turning this into a redirect which helps no one. This should either be reverted to WP:BOLD or plain deleted. - Hahnchen 01:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - actually, it wasn't protected - Cydebot apparantly has replaced all references to "Be Bold" or "Be bold" with the link to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages ... I'm mildly amused ... but it is not protected ... see this entry in the history: 22:13, 21 June 2006 Cydebot (Robot - Fixing cross-namespace redirects using AWB) ... even so, I would not suggest reverting it until the DRV is over with ... despite the irony of it all BigDT 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I see no reason why you would ever want to revert valid edits that are bypassing redirects. Granted, the edits are unnecessary if the redirect is to stay in place, but in the case of cross-namespace redirects, this makes sense (and indeed is what RoryBoy has been doing for awhile). --Cyde↔Weys 03:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I changed the references to Be bold and Be Bold back to themselves rather than as piped links to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages just inside this DRV discussion just so it wouldn't confuse the heck out of people reading it. I did not, nor would I suggest doing so, revert any of Cydebot's edits anywhere else. I only changed the links back here to avoid confusion and make it clear what we were discussing. BigDT 03:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh yes, obviously, revert it back to the "correct" thing here and at RFD. Cydebot is on "coarse-toothed comb mode" right now. --Cyde↔Weys 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh yes, and reverting Cydebot is never a good idea. AntiVandalBot doesn't take too kindly to that *evilgrin* --Cyde↔Weys 03:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Seriously though, don't mess with him. AntiVandalBot is angry. You wouldn't like him when he's angry. Wow, is that a CVU in-joke or what? --Cyde↔Weys 03:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I think I've reverted Tawkerbot before ... and I've reverted Cydebot when it messed up my UBX formatting ... but I've never attempted to mess with AntiVandalBot ... I wouldn't want the warship to attack me. ;) BigDT 03:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, you've sent your bot around like a bull in the proverbial china shop. You've forced dozens, perhaps hundreds of editors to check thousands of pages that we all have watchlisted - all pointless work but still necessary to make sure that the bot didn't screw something up. And yes, I have reverted at least two instances where the replacement was clearly inappropriate.
        By the way, the replacement was also utterly pointless. If a new user is going to be confused because be bold takes them to a Wikipedia page, they are going to be equally confused by the piped link because be bold looks the same. Rossami (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Can you give an example of where Cydebot should not have piped a link (other than on this DRV page)? Remember: Be bold was being redirected to WP:BOLD before any of this mess started, so most anyone creating a link to Be bold would have done so expecting for the target to be WP:BOLD. BigDT 03:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
        • A bull in a China shop? Geez, be reasonable. --Cyde↔Weys 04:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Obviously I endorse this deletion. I don't see any valid reasons to overturn this. People were complaining about broken redirects, but I'm fixing all of those now. Redirects can easily be dealt with; it doesn't make sense to stick with a sub-optimal situation when it can easily be fixed. If these redirects are left in place this is just going to encourage more people to use the cross-namespace redirects and cause more problems in the end. Time to nip this in the bud before any more damage is done. By the way, "Be bold" is apparently a new advertising campaign slogan and it could conceivably get an article (though we'd never have known if a cross-namespace redirect was squatting on the article name). It makes no sense whatsoever to allow an unencyclopedic redirect to take up a legitimate article name that could be used for actual encyclopedic content. This is one of ths strongest (and most obvious) arguments against cross-namespace redirects, by the way (ignoring all of the technical aspects). --Cyde↔Weys 03:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A redirect today is no bar on creating an article tomorrow should the need arise. From that prospective, if the two choices are redirect to WP:BOLD or redirect to boldness, there is going to be a redirect there either way, so I don't know that it would make any difference as far as future article creation. As for cross-namespace redirects, I don't like those either and strongly suggest using a soft redirect as this will help users learn not to depend on looking for WP namespace content in the wrong place. BigDT 03:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It actually was protected, but I see now the protection was quickly reverted. I understand why cross-space redirects may be bad as they throw off general users into the WP void, but this is a solution looking for a problem. There isn't a legitimate article using up the be bold space right now, boldness certainly isn't it. How is a cross-space redirect possibly going to make creating an article there any harder than creating an article for a redirect to boldness? I can't understand why you'd need a soft redirect telling users where to go when the WP:BOLD page already has a set of shortcuts at the top. I know Windows Genuine Advantage makes the case for nagware quite well, but I think ease of use should prevail. - Hahnchen 03:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It isn't a huge problem if people are typing "be bold" in the go/search window and getting WP:BOLD. Cross-namespace redirects aren't great, but that in and of itself isn't a huge problem. What is a problem is when people are linking to the redirect. Above, it was said that there were 3000 links to be bold. By leaving a hard redirect rather than a soft redirect, users are encouraged (or, at least, not discouraged) to link to be bold rather than something using the WP namespace. Then, six months from now, when it comes time to create the new "be bold" article, there are a bunch of links to it when people really meant to link to WP:BOLD. I'm of the opinion that ALL cross-namespace redirects ought to be soft redirects. That way, you are guaranteed that unless someone is talking about the redirect itself, they are going to be linking to the content in its correct namespace, rather than linking to something in the wrong namespace. BigDT 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse decision - if the number of links are an issue, get a bot to fix them so they pipe to WP:BOLD. We should strive to avoid cross-space redirects, even soft ones, and to avoid self-referenced. 'Be bold' can redirect to boldness until it becomes encyclopaedic (perhaps that ad campaign Cyde mentions above). Proto///type 09:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would it be a good idea to have redirects at be insane, be nice, be pedantic and be obese to their respective articles? Or is be bold a special case because it is used in Wikipedia, if it is, then it should just redirect to the WP:BOLD page. If it isn't, then it should have been deleted. The redirect to boldness is just an outcome that satisfies neither camps fully from really lame indecisive groupthink voting. Do or die, not this no-win compromise. Still, it's better than a soft redirect anywhere. When we're coming up with more ridiculous halfway house suggestions, why not have be bold a dab page! Wow. - Hahnchen 17:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Keep it redirected to boldness, or if we can explain the Wikipedia editorial process encyclopedicly and in the third person, redirect it to such an article, or delete the redirect altogether. Under no circumstances should it be redirected back into project space. And, by the way, so-called "soft" redirects are bloody stupid. — Jun. 22, '06 [13:37] <freak|talk>
• Endorse per Cyde, Proto, & Freak. Boldness has a dablink to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages so it will allow people to find the Wikipedia concept. As I said at RFD: "This term is not limited to Wikipedia (it's a common phrase in self-help publications, it's the name of blog, etc, etc.) and Wikipedia shouldn't be claiming sole use of it. This is not the same as Wikipedia specific terms which are cross namespace redirects." -- JLaTondre 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as is I'm sorry to disagree with most here but I see absolutely no reason to revert this. Sure, we have the option to ignore all rules but for what? If there was a valid rationale for doing so I would be first in line holding the revert banner. But there's not. - Glen 21:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - a few other things to consider ... take a look at [1]. If you enter "be bold", you are going to get a link to the WP page anyway. In fact, the entire first page is all redirects with different capitalization. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that pointless? If searching for "Be bold" is going to show you WP:BOLD and, after the redirects, Bold (disambiguation), and Boldness, what purpose does the redirect serve? All of the redirects just clutter up the search results. I'm of the opinion that if there is a redirect, it ought to go to WP:BOLD - nobody in a million years is going to search for "be bold" hoping to find out about "boldness", but I'm not convinced any more that these redirects are really a good idea. They just clutter the search results. BigDT 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Interwiki redirect, a reader clicking on that will see a how-to guide, not an article. Pages in the article namespace are not how to guides. A bot can fix bad links, and there is a note at the boldness page to WP:BOLD. Polonium 13:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There is a larger issue at hand here than just these two: we do not have any in-ink policy regarding cross-namespace redirects. Someone needs to propose Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects, outlining arguments for and against redirects out of mainspace, and perhaps specifically alluding to advice in cases where large numbers of them already exist. We can continue this discussion on that talk page. If we've talked about this a dozen times before, then someone go out and find those and link them there. I just think that policy on the matter is clearly needed at this point. ~ PseudoSudo 17:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Revert. The rule against cross-namespace redirection is getting in the way of doing the right thing for Wikipedia, which is to go back to the old version. It's stupid for us to hamstring ourselves with our own rules, which is what WP:IAR is all about. Mangojuice^talk 03:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is this the right thing for Wikipedia? Yes, ASR might be a rule, but that doesn't mean that it's not correct. This is an encyclopaedia, and we shouldn't be talking about non notable things in the creation of this enyclopaedia (that would be non notable if we used any standard applied to other things). --Rory096 18:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What use is it to have "be bold" redirect to "boldness"? How many times in your daily life did you ever use the word "be bold" prior to signing on here? If a redirect from "be bold" to "boldness" is useless, then it is probably not the right thing. Thus, the right thing would be either to delete it outright or to redirect it somewhere useful (like WP:BOLD). BigDT 03:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Strong agreement here. If the redirect change isn't reverted, it should be deleted (and if this DRV closes with a decision to keep be bold as it is, I'm nominating it on RfD). Having be bold redirect to boldness makes no bloody sense. jgp (T|C) 03:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Revert. Actually, one possible interpretation of WP:ASR would be that it is better to have a cross-space redirect at be bold (which does not seem to have any proven non-Wikipedia uses as a term one would look up in an encyclopedia) than to have a hatnote at boldness, which is a totally nonsensical self-reference unless be bold redirects there. In which case we argue to keep a self-reference there in order to avoid a self-reference. Yes, I know that this is different from what I said at WP:RFD about some other cross-space redirects. Now I have had more time to think about this, and I believe the campaign against all cross-space redirects (expect those having a colon in them and following some other arbitrary rules, technically WP:DRV is just as cross-namespace as be bold) was done too hastily. Evidence of confusion should need to be presented before deleting any of the redirects that have been here for years, breaking many old versions of pages. Kusma (討論) 17:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Having be bold redirect to Wikipedia:be bold in updating pages may be a self-reference, but it's a far less egregious self-reference than the huge notice that says "For the Wikipedia guideline, see Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages.". jgp (T|C) 03:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• If we don't want people using be bold when they mean WP:BOLD both the redirect to Wikipedia:Be bold and Boldness will not deter anyone from doing it; {{deletedpage}} would have the same problem (being blue). If cross-namespace redirects are going to be verboten, the pump or Wikipedia talk:Redirects is probably the best place to discuss it. I'm not even sure what the point of this DRV is. A result that just changes the target isn't exactly binding (although it is some measure of consensus). Kotepho 14:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Revert per PseudoSudo and Kusma. Work out a policy, if necessary, but this crusade of Cyde's seems to be misguided, if well-intentioned. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Cross namespace redirects from the mainspace are deleted because those pages should be encyclopedia articles and not manuals of how to make an encyclopedia. This is why we have namespaces like Wikipedia: (or WP:), User:, Help:, etc. Also, there is a note at boldness to go to WP:BOLD. Polonium 01:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Neanderthal theory of autism

On 5 Aug 05, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of autism closed as copyvio. Deleted on 13 Aug 05.

On 20 Sep 05, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum (a related page) closed as keep/rewrite

On 16 Oct 05, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum closed as delete. Both versions deleted. "theory of autism" (no "spectrum") moved to user:Ombudsman's userspace)

On 30 Oct 05, user:Ombudsman moved the article back from userspace into the main articlespace. No changes had been made to the article.

On 31 Oct 05, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of autism 3 closed as speedy delete as recreated content

On 13 June 06, stub recreated, then a confusing set of redirects were created between the "theory" and "theory ... spectrum" pages.

On 21 June 06, both were speedy-deleted as recreated content and pages protected.

Article stub deleted for no apparent reason. It is claimed that the article was recreated after a previous deletion, but the previously deleted article clearly was not the same and wasn't created by the same author. I think the article should be undeleted, and people should be able to expand the content so a useful article can be maintained. --Rdos 13:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I've notified Proto of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protection. There have already been multiple AfDs for this article, not just the contents, but the actual subject matter, so it's not just whether this is the same as the previously-deleted content, but whether the subject itself should be kept on Wikipedia. The previous AfDs seem to indicate that it shouldn't. This AfD is the latest, and also provides links to all the other related AfDs. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, forever and ever and ever. Note it was I who speedied this under CSD G4. Neanderthal theory of autism was a redirect Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum, which I also speedied. That was a rather vile (strictly in my opinion) article that was originally deleted back in October - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum. It was an original research piece, mainly written by Rdos, that stated people with autism were human-Neanderthal mutants. Recreations have been deleted before this. I won't go into the content his user page, or my interaction with him on his talk page - this is not relevant to DRV. Proto///type 14:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've added the history of this deletion debate above as best as I could sort it out. Rossami (talk)

• Comment: I really see no point in replacing a stub with no content or links with a protected page that notifies the deletion. Are these sysops so afraid of this theory that they cannot even bare to see a stub? --Rdos 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it's that this theory is not notable and this article violates Wikipedia's no original research policies. Fear has nothing to do with it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see how it could violate no original research when it is a stub! It is notable because it has lots of references to it, and is well-known in the autistic community. As also is evident in Deathphoenix entry above, it is not the content that is disputed but the idea as such. I don't think Wikipedia has any policies against specific ideas. --Rdos 16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
      • No, but the subject has already been deemed to be not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. The above AfDs have already determined the consensus. Your deletion review has not brought any new information to show that the articles were deleted out of process. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't agree with that. The article originally was voted as keep. Then somebody moved it to another name, and it was once again AfDed. This time the people who disliked it had mobilzed many followers and therefore it was deleted. But I still don't see how a stub can be speedy deleted as "recreation" when it is clearly not the same article! --Rdos 18:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the only AFD closed as delete on the content of the article, to my eyes, is the 16 Oct 05 one, which to my eyes concluded the page failed WP:NOR. (The first was a copy-vio close, the 31 Oct 05 was a recreated content closure.) I do see that the author of the one closed for failing WP:NOR is also the user requesting deletion review here. As a non-admin, I can't tell if the new page also fails WP:NOR or is a recreation of that version. If the deleted stub had citations to reliable sources then it would not qualify in my eyes as recreated content. GRBerry 17:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC) And with Rossami's response, and the unreliable sources offered below, I see that we should Endorse Deletion. GRBerry 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The entire contents of the speedy-deleted stub were "The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum proposes that various psychiatric disorders such as autism, Asperger's syndrome, ADHD and Tourette syndrome are caused by ancient hybridisation with Neanderthals." with some wikification and a stub tag. There were no citations at all. By the way, in your comment above you linked to the 16 Oct discussion but piped the link to read "20 Sep 05". Rossami (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Major oops, the one I piped to is the one I wanted. Fixed now. GRBerry 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Notability review. There is a review in the "natural variation blog" [2] and [3]. There is a Yahoo-group [4], 112 members, several professionals in psychology/psychiatry. --Rdos 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but how does a blog and a yahoo group confer any kind of verifiability or notability on anything? Proto///type 09:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The "blog" is a site for autistic peer-review. It looks at various causes of autism and evaluates them. I suppose this doesn't impress you much, but anyway. The rest of the "old" references are on my user page and in the deleted article from last year. --Rdos 16:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and protection, the history of this article is a quintessential example of the need for WP:NOR. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 18:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and protected per GRBerry, vile piece of original research. Kimchi.sg 11:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:NOR, notability, and absurdity. Sandy 13:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of self-admitted OR. Also ask User:Rdos (again) to remove it from his user page as the neanderthal link is offensive to some autistic and aspie editors. Just zis Guy you know? 13:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I will not delete it from my user page, and I'm sure that more autistic and aspie-editors find the proposed causes in Causes of autism much more offending than the Neanderthal theory. It really doesn't come down to if it is published in peer-reviewed journals or not. It is a matter of wanting to see autism as an disorder versus a difference. --Rdos 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • There is a crucial difference: those have been peer-reviewed and published in reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 11:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. No problem with the AfD, no assertion that the issues have changed. I don't really see the argument for overturning here. Mangojuice^talk 03:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is one of the most ridiculous ideas since Time Cube. Rdos is disrupting Wikipedia with this DRV request to make a point. Brian G. Crawford 08:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)