Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 30: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Barra binte Samawal]]: closing moribund debate |
→[[Research_into_health_benefits_of_Falun_Gong]]: closing moribund debate |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
||
--> |
--> |
||
====[[Research_into_health_benefits_of_Falun_Gong]]==== |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Research_into_health_benefits_of_Falun_Gong The result of AfD] |
|||
was not '''consensus''' nor '''rough consensus'''. |
|||
The article [[Research into health benefits of Falun Gong]] is one of seven daughter articles of its parent article [[Falun Gong]], which were spinned off to reduce the length of the parent article. The word "Research" implies it is to query some thing out of doubts. All editors of the main article [[Falun Gong]] have ''''consensus'''' to have this subsection [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#Research_into_Health_Benefits] or daughter article, regardless of somehow vehement disputes among editors of the parent article. Although I think the article is improvable, deleting is not appropriate. And definitely it is not a consensus deletion according to the AfD outcome [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Research_into_health_benefits_of_Falun_Gong]. [[User:Fnhddzs|Fnhddzs]] 22:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Fnhddzs presents at least one factual error. While it is true that the core editors of the [[Falun Gong]] article had discussed spinning of sections into daughter articles, there was no consensus before this and other articles were created. One editor, a Falun Gong practitioner, did so before there was agreement on which sections should be split out and what their titles should be. |
|||
*'''Overturn''' and '''undelete'''. There was absolutely no consensus to delete the page. This page, unlike some other daughter pages of the article, reflected no POV and '''only reported conclusions of research conducted at one of the nation's top medical institutes'''. It is requested that the deletion may please be reversed. |
|||
[[User:Dilip rajeev|Dilip rajeev]] 05:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Consensus was in favour of deletion - 11 to delete, 5 to keep. As the closing admin stated, keep comments discounted: from Omido ("everything that is called 'research' should be kept"), and all comments after Nick Y.'s which are based on the commentators' experiences. Olaf's keep comment is discounted because his sole reason for keeping (which he saves for last) is just to keep the whole chunk of text as a separate article because of its size, regardless of its validity. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 15:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''undelete'''. Could you educate me that in Wiki here people could change the definition of "consensus"? If you force to delete, please do not tell me it is consensus. Even 11 vs. 5 is not even an '''rough''' consensus. [[User:Fnhddzs|Fnhddzs]] 19:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC) by the way, this topic was there for a while in another section[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&oldid=53609443#Research_into_health_claims] before the splitting. [[User:Fnhddzs|Fnhddzs]] 19:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Fnhddzs, Please see [[Rough consensus]] for a definition [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 19:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::: Thanks, I learned this word exactly from that section. After so many discounts. and of course, according to a chair's judgement. Who is our chair? Is a chair elected? Anyway, it seems to me people with power have all the right of interpretation. [[User:Fnhddzs|Fnhddzs]] 20:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::The administrator who closes the discussion is the chair. There are many admins and they are all elected, as far as know (does [[Jimbo Wales]] have adminship status? did he have to be elected? I dunno) . See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship]] . As for the worry that admins having too much power over interpretation - that's why wikipedia has deletion review. [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 20:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::: That's exactly why wiki provide us another opportunity for deletion review. If one chair determines everything, why wiki bothers to provide us another channel here? [[User:Fnhddzs|Fnhddzs]] 20:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC) we cannot use another chair's judge to guide the review here. [[User:Fnhddzs|Fnhddzs]] 20:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse Deletion''' afd process worked as normal [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 19:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. From the deleted article: ''Little research has been done into the purported health benefits of [[Falun Gong]] practice. Despite this, there has been some.'' Says it all, really. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 12:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' process, anyway, as there were many, many spurious "votes." That said, the potential is far greater than the reality. The article as it was had nothing, really, so that's about all there is to the decision. If there were a wholly new, minimal article, possibly it could keep, but not this, and the process was followed by the numbers. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 15:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. That AfD debate was definitely interesting. It should be noted that when the debate was closed it was specifically noted that a number of "keep" supporters did not rely on Wikipedia policies. It is also true that a number of the "keep" opinions came from editors with little or no edit history except concerning Falun Gong and this decreases the overall weight of these editors' opinion because of neutrality issues. Furthermore the verifiability of the proposed content of the article is at best dubious. [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse decision''' and a thank you to the administrator for going through the arguments presented rather than just counting the "votes". ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 20:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''', Steve block applied the appropriate discretion when considering that this is a POV fork, and he shows exactly why AfDs are closed by administrators and not by a bot. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 02:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment as closing admin'''. I've been asked to comment here, although I think my points have been made already. Claims of consensus at the [[Falun Gong]] talk page are debatable, the current talk page is semi-protected and the article protected. Guidance at [[WP:CONSENSUS]] reads |
|||
**''It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus.'' I discounted views on the article which did not take Wikipedia policy into account, and and saw that the consensus lay with deleting the article as per [[WP:POVFORK]], and [[WP:V]], [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:NOR]]. I don't dispute that a subsection should exist at [[Falun Gong]], and am discussing this issue at the talk page. If I am allowed to offer an opinion, I obviously '''Endorse deletion'''. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 20:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||