Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 May 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cowding Soup (talk | contribs) at 02:42, 22 May 2018 (→‎Criticisms of medicine: corrected terminology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2018 May 17
2018 May 19 >

18 May 2018

Criticisms of medicine

Criticisms of medicine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

absence of consensus (see below) NightHeron (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussion with the closing administrator:

  • From my reading of Wikipedia policy, I don't see how "in terms of headcount" establishes consensus (From WP:Consensus: "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)"; from WP:WMD#Deletion discussions: "they are not `votes'. The weight of an argument is more important than the number of people making the argument"; and from WP:AFTERDELETE: "Remember that deletion discussions are not votes, and opinions are weighed according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.").
  • In the AfD discussion what argument grounded in Wikipedia policy did you see for deletion?
  • Editors supporting deletion cited several, including OR/SYNTH and NPOV. I'm not saying that they're right, necessarily, but these are arguments based on policy. Sandstein 09:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In situations as here, where there's no side that has the clearly stronger arguments (both sides made defensible arguments), a clear headcount is usually determinative for consensus. Sandstein 09:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DELAFD says pointblank "These processes are not decided through a head count" and also in WP:DEL "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it."
  • The trouble with a headcount in such a situation is that it makes it possible for a group of like-minded editors to delete an article that they find offensive or threatening to a strong viewpoint of theirs. I have tremendous respect for the other editors in the AfD discussion, several of whom have devoted a lot of work to WikiProject Medicine. However, it was clear from the discussion that some of them felt that the very idea of a "Criticisms of medicine" article was improper because it would play into the hands of CAM ("Complementary and Alternative Medicine," i.e., non-science-based treatments). Even if this were true (which I and some other editors argued that it wasn't), according to WP:Censor material should not be removed from Wikipedia because some (in this case possibly a majority of participating editors) thought it would be detrimental to a cause they believe in. (In this case it is a cause that I strongly support, namely, combating fraud and pseudoscience.)

NightHeron (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn there was no consensus, about what the article should say, or what it did say, or whether it was harmful to WP. Trying to decide in such a situation by headcount is contrary to policy. (We do resolve some matters by actually voting, but to do that fairly requires much wider discussion than practical at an AfD.) It is often forgotten that "consensus" does not mean agreement, but finding a solution that everyone or almost everyone can live with. An indecisive AfD should result in a compromise. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm just being dumb, but is the result you are proposing with overturn a "compromise"? It appears to merely be awarding the win to the minority view in the discussion, certainly not what I understand by the word compromise. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn so that the contents remain accessible to editors. If this article and AFD were of the usual variety I would have thought just about any close would be within discretion, based on the !votes and their individual justifications. However, the present situation, that the article's content will be only visible to administrators, so clearly goes against the tone of the discussion that I think it is necessary to probe more deeply.
The nomination suggests the article should be removed but some of its contents may be usable elsewhere. This implies some sort of potential for continued access (and attribution?). Roxy concurs while expressing this as "delete". Natureium's and Kirbanzo's "deletes" are explicit that some material is reusable. Kirbanzo agrees to a "redirect" to achieve this. Semmendinger seems to agree and suggests the contents are moved to a suitable place or retained in a history. Biogeographist and WhatamIdoing suggest a "redirect" to enable splitting some material elsewhere.
Discospinster and NightHeron opine "keep" (and my apologies for so crassly oversimplifying your opinions).
DGG voices a clear "delete" but later gives a nuanced "keep". @DGG: clarification? Legacypac's "delete" expresses a view on the AFD discussion but not on the article.
TenOfAllTrades concedes the possibility that some minor information might be usable elsewhere but is rather firmly of the view that the article and contents should be removed. Andrew D deplores the polemic nature of the subject, thinks criticisms should be embedded elsewhere and, I think, suggests this article has nothing worth salvaging.
I suggest "no consensus" or "redirect" would be a reasonable conclusion based on the discussion (and, frankly, either is more desirable than delete). Move to draft is maybe too creative for DRV to stomach. Thincat (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind to keep upon re-examination fo the article and the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "No consensus" and restore the article, as per NightHeron and DGG above. Do not relist, but it can be relisted later if any editor so desires, as with any no consensus result. Several of the editors who commented proposed splitting the article, which is not properly a "delete" result, because attribution would require its retention in that case. Specifically, SEMMENDINGER, Kirbanzo, and Biogeographist favored this approach. The argument that Any title starting "Criticism of..." should be deleted as contrary to our core policy of WP:NPOV. by Andrew D. clearly does not have site-wide consensus and should have been discounted. LegacyPac's view was a meta comment on the discussion, providing no policy-based reasons for deletion, and should have been discounted. The assertions of SYNTH and of need-for MEDRS-based sourcing were convincingly refuted and should have been discounted. The argument for BURDEN and PROVEIT was misapplied. The deletion policy is clear that there must be an active, policy-based consensus for deletion, and that in the absence of such a consensus, an article is not deleted, which is why a no consensus close does not lead to deletion. Headcount should not be applied to determine consensus to delete at all. Back when it was, in the days of VfD, the standard was that at least 2/3rds of those commenting must favor deletion to form a consensus to delete. by my count, 14 editors commented on point, and 7 of those were clear delete views (even counting those I said above should be discounted). Even by headcount, this is not a consensus to delete. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Sandstein and I don't get along too well. He/she can seem stern. However, his/her judgment is ok. Are there many reliable sources, such as a book entitled "Criticism of Medicine"? I think not. If this is allowed, then anyone could start articles called "Criticism of Trump", "Criticism of Obama", "Criticism of the University of Virignia", "Criticism of United Airlines (which would be a longer article than the United Airlines article), "Criticism of Dermatology about why you hate your skin doctor. Cowding Soup (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein mentions NPOV and OR, which is policy. This would prevent articles such as "Criticism of Dermatology why you hate your skin doctor". It would also prevent "Holocaust Never Happened" articles. Cowding Soup (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC - Having the benefit of viewing the deleted article helps, which is far from great but the concept is valid and encyclopedic, and the arguments presented in the AFD might have leaned towards delete initially, but overall were a mixed bag. The main issue here is the number of !voters who wanted to split the material, which indicates they wanted to keep it even if in a different format. It's a borderline case, so I don't fault Sandstein, but I don't see a clear consensus to delete here. Basically, I agree with DGG here that the material should be accessible so it can be merged. If done properly, the stand alone article could be worthwhile, and the overall concept, criticism of (western) medicine, is certainly a notable one that is covered in more than a few thousand publications, so it is reasonable to assume that WP:RS and WP:V could be met. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid reason. If you want the information so some of it can be used, either start reading sources or ask for a partial undelete in your sandbox. We can't have junk in article space. Administrator Sandstein in right. Cowding Soup (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've become an expert in 81 edits. Then please, be sure to read WP:BLUDGEON. Sandstein being an admin is meaningless here. All the people !voting for overturn are also admin, we just disagree with him. Addressing him as "Administrator Sandstein" is unnecessary, and moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Did User:DGG !vote twice in opposing ways? His first !vote makes more sense. He and several others advocated rescuing a mess by "split and merge", which is a horrible thing to do with a mess, from an attribution perspective. I haven't seen the article (a temp undelete please?), but I think the closer did good, and the "split and merge" ideas should be satisfied by providing the list of references but not the creative product. When doing a merge from a mess, it is much better to go back to the references. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: You say you haven't seen the article, but three times you refer to it as a "mess". Don't you think you should read an article before pronouncing it a "mess"?NightHeron (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. It is my word, but it is the indirect impression I got from the AfD.
"Criticism of" I usually consider to be "mess"
  • So you agree with Andrew D. that any "Criticism of" article (of which there are many on Wikipedia) should probably be deleted? That POV leads you to a judgment based just on the AfD discussion's negative claims, ignoring the positive statements and the refutations of the negative ones.NightHeron (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
" essay rather than an encyclopedic article"
" it's too broad a topic and should be split up into other pages"
"but an essay. Split into other articles"
"TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 2 May 2018", I summarise as a "mess". This does not mean good stuff in there.
The notion of split and delete creates an attribution mess.
My early impression at this stage is that they way forward is to accept the deletion, collect the references, and start again adding new content to other articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont vote, I give an opinion. Rereading the proposed article , I think it i a melange of material that have better be handled separately. there fare, alter all two questions in this areaL which can best be handled separately. I would divide the critcism of the sxientific practice of medicine, viewed as an applied science, form the criticism of the perfomance ofthe medical system regraded as a matter of public health of orgnaizatrion. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse there was a fairly clear consensus in the discussion what we shouldn't have this article, the only question is whether the page is to be deleted or split across multiple other pages. The close allows for the latter if an editor is committed to doing it (The article can be userfied if somebody does want to recycle some content in other articles) and nobody seems to have requested it. I don't see what overturning to no consensus would do, if anything that seems to be the outcome with the least support. Hut 8.5 21:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfication of an article to be split will almost certainly result in an attribution failure, and will certainly result in ugly attribution records. Better to start again with the references only. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_May_18&oldid=842381709"