Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 7

Undelete:This article should be undeleted, as there are numerous sources for this phenomena, and it was apparently judged as a medical topic when initially deleted, which it is not. It will not appear in a medical paper, for the same reason a genre of music won't. See this talk page for a heavily linked discussion on the topic. The current page for ASMR describes the phenomena as a blatant hoax. This needs to be edited regardless of the outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.76.153 (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion review is not to be used just because you dislike the outcome: it is to be used if the debate was conducted or closed incorrectly or if significant new information has come to light that would justify reopening the discussion. There is no way that debate could have been closed as anything other than Delete: the arguments for deletion had solid grounding in policies and guidelines which were not addressed by those arguing to keep the article, and the arguments for retention were all extremely weak. The links on Sandstein's talk page point to reddit, blogs, Google search results, self-published websites, an internet radio station, an article from an "alternative newsweekly" and an opinion piece from the Huffington Post. None of this gets remotely close to establishing notability. The assertion that this is not a medical topic is, frankly, ridiculous, and is only relevant because WP:MEDRS applies. Hut 8.5 14:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that this is not a medical topic is not "ridiculous" at all. Not one piece of evidence has shown that this is a medical topic, no treatments are suggested in any of the citations presented, no symptoms are described, no medical journals cited. This topic does not need to meet the standards of WP:MEDRS and any debate which relies on those standards is flawed. Therefore, the debate was conducted incorrectly. Allegations were made regarding the use of sock-puppets were made by those supporting deletion, which is of course, a delusion on their part. If users cannot explain with cogent argument why a community is not notable, they should not delete the article. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By "the debate was conducted incorrectly" I mean "there were procedural errors in the discussion" - things like not tagging the article with the appropriate template, or closing the discussion prematurely. You haven't alleged any such errors here. The fact that the article didn't claim to diagnose or treat disease doesn't mean it's not a medical topic. ASMR is supposedly a physical sensation in parts of the human body caused by particular external stimuli, that makes it a medical topic. Even if it was not a medical topic we still need significant coverage in third-party reliable sources and nothing you've pointed to qualifies. Many participants in the debate were meatpuppets, that makes matters worse. Hut 8.5 15:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using derogatory terminology to identify participants who disagree with you is not conducive to civil discussion. I am not a "meat-puppet", I am a contributor and would like to be treated as such. Your own enlistment of those who support deletion is no different.

I note you said "ASMR is supposedly a physical sensation in parts of the human body caused by particular external stimuli, that makes it a medical topic." Can you show where you got that definition from? It is a very loose definition; it would include television, music, art and speech. Presumably you just created the definition to further your argument, which is not conducive to reaching a conclusion on this topic. If Wikipedia's guidelines suggest these topics are medical, please correct me. You yourself cite premature closure as an example of procedural error - it's apparent that the citations and arguments above were not made in the original argument thus it's closure was premature. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Wikilawyering. The content of this article is not remotely comparable to art, music etc. "Premature closure" does not mean "closure before X argument has been raised", it means "closure of the discussion before the closer was allowed to close it" (7 days after the start of the discussion in most cases). Soliciting meatpuppetry is against policy and comments made by meatpuppets can be ignored or assigned reduced weight by the closing administrator. Notifying the deleting admin of this discussion is not canvassing: it you look at the instructions at the top of the page you'll see you are required to do this when you list an article here, though you seem to have missed that step. Hut 8.5 17:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you're the one "Wikilawyering"; you've cited a lot of irrelevant policy, but nothing related to ASMR. If you have nothing to say about ASMR, I don't see why you're posting here. I have no desire to discuss Wikipedia policy, I'm here to discuss the reinstatement of the ASMR page. If you can elaborate (with evidence) on your statement that "The content of this article is not remotely comparable to art, music etc." that would be relevant. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not citing "lot of irrelevant policy": I cited two guidelines and one policy, all of which are relevant. If you want to get the page reinstated then arguing about the definition of the word "medicine" isn't going to help your case. The main problem with the article is that the topic does not have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Start with that. Hut 8.5 17:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party coverage has already been provided by me; significantly more than is cited in the genre of music I linked to. The only problem here is that you seem to think a sensation which is not related to any malfunction in the human body, does not require any treatment or medicine, and has not been mentioned in any medical research journal must have citations in pubmed before it can have a Wikipedia article. I do not know of any policy which says this type of phenomena should be held to that standard and none has been provided by you. I think it best to wait for others to give their opinion. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having third-party coverage is not enough, the coverage also has to be reliable, and as I explained above the sources you have provided do not meet this standard. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered a weak argument around here. Hut 8.5 20:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you're wikilawyering again. Can you cite a policy regarding holding this sort of thing to the same standard as medical topics? 62.254.76.153 (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've grasped Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. For a topic to have an article on Wikipedia it must be notable - it must have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The sources you've provided are things like blogs, self-published websites and the occasional opinion piece in a newspaper. These sources are not considered reliable and do not demonstrate notability. If you want to demonstrate notability you'll have to provide some other sources. Note that I haven't mentioned medicine anywhere here: this would all still be true if the topic had nothing to do with medicine. Hut 8.5 20:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See a list of references here. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I haven't checked every single one of those but I'm not very impressed. Almost all of them are self-published websites, blogs, forums, Facebook pages and other unreliable content. I don't think there's anything not in one of those categories that hasn't been mentioned already. Hut 8.5 21:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it's a list of links to resources, not a list of citations. But they are enough to show notability through coverage in third-party sources. When you've checked them all, decide if you think the phenomena meets the definition of notable (that being the required standard, not whether or not you are "impressed") 62.254.76.153 (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

By "not impressed" I mean "I don't think this constitutes notability". Again merely demonstrating coverage in third-party sources is not sufficient, the sources have to satisfy our standards of reliability. I'm not going to check each link individually to see if it satisfies our reliability standards (it isn't at all reasonable to ask someone to check all of them) but it's obvious that links in a section titled "blog posts", "apps" or "discussion forums" aren't going to qualify. I've checked all the ones I think might qualify, they don't. Hut 8.5 22:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to delete something and retain the phrase "blatant hoax" on the page, I would expect you to put the effort in and read the links provided. If you cannot, you should designate this responsibility to a mod who can. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work like that. The community decided to delete this article in a deletion discussion and you are trying to persuade us that there is significant new evidence that warrants revisiting that decision. When pressed to point to this evidence your response is to list about 80 links, the vast majority of which are clearly not appropriate, and effectively say "it's in there somewhere, you find it". If you think that one, or two, or even ten of those links demonstrate notability then by all means list them here, but the burden of proof is on you and nobody is going to do your work for you. And I have no idea why you're talking about hoaxes, the page was deleted as a result of this deletion discussion. Hut 8.5 23:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very cynical way to refer to me providing eighty links which weren't discussed in the original debate. Given the topic, many of those links will make good citations, and ALL of them are evidence of notability. The term blatant hoax is on the ASMR page right now, and is obviously offensive to the community and not in all keeping with Wikipedia's policy of civility. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I decided not to automatically restore it as I usually do, because its verifiability is challenged. If any other admin wants to check more carefully than my quick look & decides to restore it, I have no objection. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be verified exactly? Based on Wikipedia:Verifiability it's simply the requirement to provide appropriate sources, and we can provide lots. As a genre of video, thousands of examples exist, and articles about those videos exist too. As a named and discussed phenomena, we have articles from edited news sources. The community surrounding it is mentioned in third-party articles. As an internal mental state... that's unverifiable in its nature, but that doesn't stop there being a page on sadness or surprise. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Hut 8.5. No evidence that deletion procedure wasn't followed, and frankly when a whole bunch of sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts show up from nowhere to "vote" like that, 99.9% of the time that's a strong indication that the article is destined for the bin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7 May 2012

Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response