Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose[edit]

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
  9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before deletion review. See § Purpose.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]

 
1.

Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.

2.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
4.

Inform the administrator who deleted the page, or the user who closed the deletion discussion, by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2019 January 17}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

6.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 January 17}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 January 17|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

Any editor may express his or her opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion[edit]

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint - if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't).



Active discussions[edit]

17 January 2019[edit]

16 January 2019[edit]

Nazo Dharejo[edit]

Nazo Dharejo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Nazo Dharejo's story has been made into an acclaimed film My Pure Land and has received lots of media coverage. Last month JogiAsad requested the deleting admin Courcelles to restore the article, and HouseOfChange concurred and said they would improve the article after its restoration (see archived discussion), but Courcelles has been inactive recently and has not responded. Zanhe (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • The general rule is that if an article has been deleted via AfD, but the discussion was long ago and the reasons for deletion are no longer valid, then anybody can recreate the article without needed to go through DRV. Since the AfD was 3-1/2 years ago, and there's ostensibly new sources due to new events, I don't see any reason that shouldn't apply here. I looked at the deleted article. It's not very well written. I'd have no objection if somebody wanted to restore it, but I honestly think you'd do better to start from scratch. The original references were[1][2][3][4][5] -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Saba Imtiaz, Sameer Mandhro (June 17, 2012). "Meet Nazo Dharejo: The toughest woman in Sindh". The Express Tribune News Network. The Express Tribune. Retrieved 3 September 2015.
  2. ^ Chandio, Ramzan (April 5, 2013). "PML-N women workers burst against 'nepotism' in selections". NAWAIWAQT GROUP OF NEWSPAPERS. The Nation. Retrieved 3 September 2015.
  3. ^ (PML-N), Women seats (Sindh Assembly). "Priority list of political parties for women, minorities reserved seats" (PDF). http://www.brecorder.com. Retrieved 3 September 2015. External link in |website= (help)
  4. ^ "President for collective efforts to root out corruption". HURMAT GROUP OF PUBLICATIONS. Daily Pakistan Observer. November 19, 2013. Retrieved 3 September 2015.
  5. ^ "تبريز انڙ نقصان پهچائڻ چاهي ٿو، هٿياربند ساڻ ڪري ڀائٽيي تي فائرنگ ڪئي: نازو ڌاريجو". BBCSINDHI. http://www.bbcsindhi.com. November 30, 2014. Retrieved 3 September 2015.
  • What Roy said, except I would've been much harsher than "not very well written". —Cryptic 21:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion and list of references. I also gathered a few while writing about the film My Pure Land. I have started a draft of Nazo Dharejo in my sandbox, once it is past a stub I will post it to mainspace so others can work on it. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

14 January 2019[edit]

Koszalin escape room fire[edit]

Koszalin escape room fire (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer closed AfD as "merge". In terms of justified !votes, I believe there were 6 Keeps and 4 Merges (6 & 5 total). There was no delete/redirect !vote, so I could see that the discussion should be closed, but I feel either a Keep or No-consensus, along with a suggestion of opening a merge discussion was the appropriate action - consensus didn't support a forced merge. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Overturn and close (Wasn't sure if nom's should !vote again - ignore if not!) - just a clarification that relisting does seem a bit odd as technically it fell out of AfD remit once no-one wanted to delete it anymore, hence the close request. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC) (Struck due to clarifying no need for duplication)
  • Nom's don't need to !vote again. I participated in the AfD so won't be !voting here, but I am frustrated you did not allow the closer a chance to respond and possibly amend their decision before taking this to deletion review. SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying the !vote. I raised it on Randykitty's talk page about 32 hours ago, which seemed a reasonable waiting period - obviously lots of editors go longer without being online, but there didn't seem a clear good alternate point to use either. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries. Also, just as a point of clarification, an IP voter did !vote delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse as closer. I don't have much time right now to go into this very deeply. My close was based on the fact that a/ hardly anybody argued for outright deletion, b/ some of the "keep" arguments were pretty weak ("this is the first incident"), and c/ the article consisted of a mere 3 sentences (and it is not readily evident how this would be expanded, nor was there any argument brought forward during the discussion) and the target article was not very large either. In the light of all this, a merge seemed like the best solution and I still think that is the case. --Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse the result, but the discussion was defective, in that nobody made the case properly that this violates WP:NOTNEWS by being based on primary news reports rather than secondary sources. If this incident leads to changes in safety procedures for escape rooms then that should be covered in the escape room article rather than us keeping a news report in the pretence that it is an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree that NOTNEWS is applicable, Phil. We're editing an encyclopaedia that's so inclusionist we're not allowed to delete articles about individual animal ghosts, individual wrestling pay-per view events, or the list of Crayola crayon colours. This is a real world incident where five teenagers died -- if Wikipedia had any proportionate or intelligible significance threshold, then this would be way over it. But I do agree that merge was a reasonable reading of that debate.—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn (to “keep or merge”). That discussion is not a consensus to merge. Also, it was not a valid AfD, there never was a valid nomination arguing a full delete (or pseudo-delete). Note the currently highly relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Has AFD become "Articles for Discussion" ?. AfD is too clumsy to properly manage the complexities of a merge. At the target, this incident is a very special case, it should not be summarily concluded by this AfD discussion. Completion of a merge requires consensus at the target page, demonstrated at the target talk page if contested. The conclusion of the AfD was that a merge proposal should be opened. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahllam (singer)[edit]

Ahllam (Iranian singer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

as I said there she clearly passes point #9, #10, #11 and #12.TanksReza Amper (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: this was originally filed under the wrong day. I've moved it here as a purely administrative function. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse consensus to delete was clear, this nomination fails WP:DRVPURPOSE #5. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - clear consensus to delete - the editors did not accept the justfication(s) for notability, and I believe they were right not to do so. DELREV isn't design to re-litigate the fact-finding aspect. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse but encourage draftification. Although no one mentioned draftification, all !votes were consistent with draftifying. WP:TOOSOON is a reason to draftify. Reba makes a number of points from MUSICBIO, but should be reminded that subnitability guideline subpoints are quick indicators of probably notability and are weak when push comes to shove. They do however easily justify a draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

12 January 2019[edit]

Category:Autism quackery[edit]

Category:Autism quackery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

An admin stated their objected closure in CfD (diff). Their statement is I object to this close on the grounds of WP:INVOLVED and may take this matter to arbitration if informal discussions to reverse it are unsuccessful. Jehochman Talk 08:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I cannot decide what to do next. So I post here to request other people comment. See also closer talk page Hhkohh (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Permalink to the discussion

That was probably the most broadly-based CFD which I have seen in 13 years of closely watching CFD. It reached a very clear conclusion.
That is why I speedily deleted this category, and also Category:Quacks and Category:American quacks ... all per per WP:BLP/WP:G4/WP:G10.
Here's the relevant section, which prompted my actions. I have added bolding to the most relevant section.
The category will therefore be renamed Category:Advocates of pseudoscience (as of May 23, categories may be renamed through a page move, and this will be implemented once that option becomes available). Furthermore, this category will only serve as a holding category for subcategories (and should be tagged with {{container category}}). This category therefore should be empty as to articles, and should contain only subcategories such as Category:Alchemists and Category:Phrenologists, on the condition that reliable sources generally classify the subcategorized field itself as a pseudoscience. The rename makes the category more accurate (all astrologers advocate in some sense for a pseudoscience, but not all are pseduoscientists as many employ pure mysticism), while the depopulation largely eliminates the BLP problem (people do not self-identify as pseduoscientists, but do self-identify as crytozoologists). Because of this subcategorization, the "pseudoscientist" category will not appear on the articles of subjects, and therefore will not be detrimental to article subjects who might dispute that categorization.
It is regrettable that 4 years later, the BLP and neutrality principles which were asserted then on the basis of such substantive discussion are apparently controversial among some editors.
In particular, the term "quack" is significantly more derogatory than than "pseudoscientist". The OED definition of "quack" explicitly ties it to dishonesty, which is not necessarily the case with pseudoscience (which may be based on ignorance or folly).
There are many forms of words which can be used to describe those who advocate medical treatments which fall outside the current consensus, or which have been disproven. The use of attack labels such as the word "quack" is particularly problematic in categories, because categories appear at the bottom of articles without any qualification or attribution, as required per WP:WEIGHT.
WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are core policies on en.Wikipedia. We should not have to endless relitigate their application to this field, when the community has already had such an extensive discussion about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I think this warrants going to ANI, or further, as clear action by an INVOLVED admin. I see no reason to choose to ignore INVOLVED because we have no shortage of other admins to do so, there was no rush and no evident delay in getting it closed. Admins do not get to ignore policies on their whim like this, we have INVOLVED for a reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn (I prefer re-open) and let some other admin close it. We have plenty of admins. No need for an admin who was heavily involved in the discussion to close the discussion. Also, no need for speedy process here. Baby went out with the bath water. The category contained multiple non-BLP articles. Also, the discussion consensus was to rename, not to delete. Jehochman Talk 10:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Several of those non-BLP articles related to small organisations. WP:BLPGROUP notes the policy does not generally apply to groups, BUT that A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group.
The category as it stood was a blatant attack category, per WP:G10, which says Examples of "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to.
The category's creator explicitly labelled the category as unevidenced (often harmful) quack treatments. In the CFD discusison, the creator described the category as an opinionated value judgment[1], and also explicitly state their desire to use to attach the label "quackery" to an identifed individual.[2] So the attacking intent seems very clear: to label those involved as causing harm, and as dishonest.
I urge editors to think carefully about both the specific consequences of endorsing attacking categories in this field, and the consequences of the wider precedent which would be set by tolerating blatant attack categories such as this. Note that other attack categories relating to science such as Category:Climate change deniers have been deleted (that one at WP:CFD 2015 Oct 16).
I know that some editors have very strong views on these matters, and sincerely believe that they have a responsibility to warn readers against some treatments. However the same applies to many areas of public controversy. As an NPOV encyclopedia, it is not Wikipedia's role to promote disparaging terminology for topics where editors have strong feelings. We do not, for example, categorise people as Category:Terrorists, and there is no reason to categorise in this field by opinionated value judgment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You're trying to explain your breach of INVOLVED by claiming that it was really important for the category to go. That is not the issue here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • From Carlos the Jackal: Carlos the Jackal, is a Venezuelan terrorist
So yes, we do identify BLP subjects as terrorists, rightly so, and we also identify Jenny McCarthy as an anti-vaccine activist. We can (and the CfD does) discuss what the phrasing for this should be – but that's still a long way from a single-handed CSD against consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
So yes, we do identify BLP subjects as terrorists, rightly so, and we also identify Jenny McCarthy as an anti-vaccine activist. We can (and the CfD does) discuss what the phrasing for this should be – but that's still a long way from a single-handed CSD against consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Andy Dingley, it is sad to see that you dismiss BLP and NPOV as "excuses".
Your example misunderstands the issue, which is the use of a non-neutral category. Carlos the Jackal is not in any category containing the word "terror/terrorism/terrorist". The use of a stigmatising word in body text is a different issue, where WP:WEIGHT applies; the term can be attributed, referenced and qualified, and alternative labels also given due weight. Per WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 27#Category:Terrorists: we do not place individuals in Category:Terrorists. I urge you to read the close of that discussion, and also WP:COP#General_considerations and WP:BLPCAT.
From that April 2009 CFD, there developed a set of categories which attribute the label per WP:WEIGHT, so e.g. Patrick Magee (Irish republican) is in Category:Irish republicans imprisoned under Prevention of Terrorism Acts and Richard Reid is in Category:People convicted on terrorism charges.
Note that the labelling of Carlos the Jackal as "terrorist" even in body text would not be permitted by Reuters[3], and is at least problematised by the BBC.[4] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Category creator's response As the category's creator I was a bit disappointed to see that Autism:Quackery had been deleted (incidentally I was unaware of the previous 2014 discussion about Pseudoscientists) and wanted to thank @Jehochman: for re-opening the discussion / objecting. My own objection differs somewhat (I'm neutral about who closes it). Mine's that I really, strongly, think that - given the increase in popularity of unevidenced (and potentially harmful) autism treatments - a specific category that covers both autism and 'potentially harmful interventions or ideas' is helpful for knitting those otherwise disparate pages together. Is it possible to have a category that can only be used for 'things' or beliefs, and not for people? I think the main objection in its pejorative use was that it was used to categorise people, such as Jenny McCarthy (in fact I added that category to her page, so my fault) though by doing so I had no intention of 'attacking' her, it was simply that she is a promoter of unevidenced ideas relating to autism (already explicitly noted in her article). I'm aware of the irony here but I really don't think it's particularly fair to categorise me as having an 'attacking intent', but I realise outcome and intention can appear the same even when unintended. Anyway... I don't think 'quackery' or 'pseudoscience' is especially pejorative if applied to CEASE therapy or Rope worms (the references to the self-published authors can be removed, and couldn't the category can be removed and 'disallowed' for the Autism Research Institute?), as others have also commented. It does feel a bit baby / bathwater. Is there an option that restricts how a category can be used, eg 'this category may not be applied to living persons'? P.S. I didn't get a notification that the discussion had moved here, I just happened to spot it while looking glumly at the blue-background text on the CfD page. I may be slow to respond as I'm out for most of the rest of the day. Thanks :) JoBrodie (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • JoBrodie the category to which you added McCarthy was specifically described by you as a category for unevidenced (often harmful) quack treatments. It seems to me to be quite bizarre to claim that attaching the label "unevidenced", "harmful" and "quack" to a person is anything other an attack.
You may regard it a justified attack, but Wikipedia is not a place to Right Great Wrongs. That sort of crusading has many homes on the internet, but this is an NPOV encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This argument is a red herring. If there is good sourcing we will write and categorize subjects negatively. If I call somebody a murderer or thief, that would be extremely slanderous, unless it’s true. We have Category:Murderers and Category:Thieves. We can make a category for those promoting unscientific automatism treatments. The title needs to be NPOV and anybody included has to have a solid reference. We fix NPOV violations by editing, not by mass deletion. Jehochman Talk 13:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
In addition, please stop flooding the discussion with walls of text. Jehochman Talk 13:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Jehochman, you are the one pushing a red herring.
If this was Category:Unscientific autism treatments, there would be no BLP/G10 issues, and no question of me speedy deleting it. The BLP/G10 arises out of the use of attack terminology.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • So why did you ignore the CfD, where there was at least some support for a rename, and instead choose to delete this altogether and so precipitously? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I see nothing in policy which supports (let alone requires) the retention of a blatant attack page until the point at which it may be tweaked to be less attacking. Can you identify anything?
Policy at WP:G10 and at WP:VLP#Attack_pages is to revert to a pre-existing neutral version or delete. There was no previous neutral version of the category page, and in the case of a category with a title designed to attack, reverting the category page would not solve the problem.
If editors wish to create a neutrally-framed category or categories, it would contain a different set of pages. There might be some overlap, or maybe a lot of overlap, but there is no need to use the attack page as a starting point for a neutral approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn, this category is not a recreation of a category deleted per an XFD discussion and so is ineligible for G4. We should never interpret XFD results as broadly as was urged here to justify speedy deletion, where it is merely the same "type" of category, as the closer describes it above. The closer's interpretation would also justify speedy deleting Category:Pseudoscience because we had deleted Category:Pseudoscientists, or Category:Terrorism because we had deleted Category:Terrorists, examples that should hopefully make it clear that a category for individuals raises different issues than a topical category such that a judgment on one is not the same as a judgment on the other. This is also why the G10 and BLP claims fail, and I see nothing in policy that empowers admins to make those kinds of determinations outside of a demonstrated consensus on that particular category. postdlf (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Similar to RoySmith's comment below, I'm not voicing any opinion on what the close should be either, beyond that it should not be how it is presently closed. postdlf (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Void close and trout. BrownHairedGirl is clearly WP:INVOLVED due to participation at the CfD. Back out the close and leave it for some uninvolved admin to re-close. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
PS, I'm not advocating an overturn to any particular outcome. CfD has its own nuanced policies and customs; we should leave it somebody who is familiar with those to handle the actual re-close. Our job here is just to observe that the current close was out of process. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This is quackery.
  • Endorse for what I think are obvious reasons: WP:G10. I can't believe a group of adults actually seriously discussed keeping a category called "______ Quackery". That is an obvious "attack category"–it's not even a close call. Unless you're talking about ducks or geese, calling anyone or anything a "quack" or "quackery" is a blatant insult and thus a personal attack. This is an encyclopedia, it should be encyclopedic in tone, meaning professional and neutral. "Quackery" is not professional or neutral. That the creator of this category then went to add a BLP to it strains my ability to assume good faith. It seems like we wanted to officially call Jenny a quack, and while she might be one, that is not for an encyclopedia to do. I have issues with "pseudoscience" as a similarly-loaded term. I don't see the reason to sort all of human knowledge into two categories: science and fiction. First of all, let's step back and realize that a lot of things that were once considered "quackery" are now considered "science," and vice versa. Secondly, we are not here to right great wrongs. Thirdly, while I personally can live with a container category "pseudoscience" (but not a "pseudoscientist" category, for the same reason "terrorism" is ok but not "terrorist"), there comes a point where something is such an obviously bad idea or a such an obvious attack that speedily deleting it is the right move (as opposed to a discussion about how to move it/change it/otherwise clean it up). The "murderer" analogy is a bad one because being a murderer involves being convicted of murder, whereas there is no formal legal process for labelling one a "quack" (or a "pseudoscientist"). This was a bold admin action and I'm no fan of supervotes, but in this case, I think a very experienced editor made the right call and I support it. Levivich (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
That's a strawman argument. The discussion was not going to keep the original category name. The discussion consensus was converging on a rename to something like "Autism pseudoscience" when an involved admin decided to substitute her opinion for everybody else's. We all seem to agree that "quackery" is an unencyclopedic, unacceptable term. Nobody is still advocating to use that word. Jehochman Talk 21:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, agreed - I'm not holding out for the retention of the term quackery, and I agree that the category should not be used on living people. If the current category remains wiped I'd hope that a separate Category:Unscientific autism treatments or Category:Unsubstantiated autism treatments category could still have potential value for non-BLP pages at least. Unscientific advice and treatments for autism are quite widespread and harmful, see the findings in a report presented at UK's Parliament earlier last year. Recommending bleach enemas (or drinking bleach) to cure autism, or that people should avoid MMR vaccination to prevent autism, or homeopathy to 'detox' children from their vaccinations to reverse autism are things that I don't think could ever be supported by science. I can't check the edit history of Category:Quacks so don't know how long that label was in use, or whether just one person was adding people to it (I never used it myself) but as of yesterday there were 59 people listed there, many alive. Against that backdrop it didn't seem particularly un-WP-ish to tag JMcC as someone who promotes some pseudoscientific views about autism but happy to accept that we were all wrong to have done so. (Incidentally there are currently six people listed as Persons accused of quackery#Living on the Quackery page). JoBrodie (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Category:American quacks was created on 9 December 2018. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Levivich – See Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose. That's not the purpose of DRV. The grounds for DRV here are (mostly) on the basis of INVOLVED, also for ignoring what looked like a clear consensus otherwise, and they're both independent of whether the answer was "right" or "wrong". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah OK, sorry - I wasn't sure where to add it as I don't think I'm meant to edit the original discussion page now JoBrodie (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Purpose #2 of delrev is if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed, and I'm arguing above that it was not done outside of the criteria and should not be otherwise disputed. As to WP:Involved: If the issue is framed as "did the closer post in the discussion?" then the outcome will be fixed: obviously the closer posted in the discussion. That doesn't mean the closer is necessarily involved. Exceptions exist for "straightforward cases" and "purely in an administrative role". (Not to mention WP:IAR.) The closer's posts in the discussion were all about the same G4 and G10 issues. I see a correct application of those principles here, and I don't mind that the closer tried to point this out in the discussion before speedily deleting. With the benefit of hindsight, I would have preferred if the closer had just speedily deleted it right away without posting in the discussion, taking a purely and unquestionably administrative action, but that's just Monday-morning quarterbacking on my part (I'm super good at that). There is a reason to delete it rather than rename it: to also delete, rather then preserve, the history of it starting as "___ Quackery" (and I think the categorization of anyone or any organization, but especially BLPs, under that category should be revdel'd). If everyone agrees "Autism Quackery" was a bad name, let's close this delrev, leave it deleted, and just start a new category, "unsubstantiated" or "nonscientific" or whatever neutral, supported-by-RS term editors want to use. Levivich (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to throw this into the mix too, we also have Category:Health fraud (and it's already being re-added to some of these articles). Whatever finally happens, it may involve that equally. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • 'Fraud' seems a wee bit harsh though? Also often implies intentional wrongdoing rather than being mistaken. Hmm, not sure. JoBrodie (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For what it’s worth, I think “pseudoscientific” is a useful term. There are scientific “medical” treatments, some of which may be “experimental” (unproven but having a plausible theory how they might work). Everything else is “Alternative medicine”, a whitewash term that tries to conflate pseudo-medicine with medicine. Alternative medicine is like the Trump spokeswoman who said “alternative facts”. I don’t think we should use the charlatains’ preferred terminology. There really needs to be a full discussion of what to call these categories. Jehochman Talk 23:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • “Alternative medicine”, a whitewash term ... charlatains.
Not much NPOV in there.
This enthusiasm for pejorative labels wouldn't be entertained in other topic areas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist per WP:INVOLVED, on purely procedural terms, and get an experienced closer to re-close this one. SportingFlyer T·C 07:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist It is called "Categories for discussion", rather than deletion, and for some time into the discussion nobody at all expressed a view towards deletion. However strong might have been the case for early deletion, the discussion proved it was not one of the "most obvious cases" as required for WP:CSD deletion – even the deleting admin suggested a rename might have been suitable. Even if a speedy had been "most obvious", it was unbecoming for a (strong) discussion participant to have taken an immediate unilateral decision for deletion. (Of course, as named, the category was no good at all.) Thincat (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist If it had been closed before any comments were made about this category other than the nom, then I could accept a G4 claim. However, consensus can change, and this discussion clearly indicated that there are reasonable grounds for saying it did in this case. As to the use of the word "quackery", there can be no doubt that the responses show that the users noticed this word and responded with something along the lines of "good category, bad name". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A number of procedural issues here. A) It's almost always a bad idea to speedy something that is under discussion at XfD. B) WP:INVOLVED applies. C) The speedy criteria here is a stretch--this isn't the same category. B and C are larger issues than A, but yeah, this is a bad call. I understand the sense that WP:BLP applied and therefore a rush was needed, but overall a really bad idea. overturn and relist Hobit (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually WP:INVOLVED would be if I as original CFDer were attempting to close it. ;) Trying to link it to a previous discussion wouldn't really mean involved. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse Undeleting this category just to rename it is process wonkery. Just make the new category and populate it appropriately. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
That’s fine but a recreating deleted content is ordinarily improper and can result in speedy deletion. We need clarity that it’s ok to creat or rename with a better name. I’ll leave it to the regulars here to determine what’s best. Jehochman Talk 19:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and reopen (1) CSD is reserved for completely non-controversial deletions. The fact that several views had already been expressed during the discussion should be an immediate disqualification for any speedy process. (2) We don't need potentially controversial debates being closed by an admin who had already made three contributions to the discussion. We might be short of admins, but we're not that short. --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The speedy deletion was a bold move, but afaics not incorrect and not outside the discretion we should allow admins. The closure of the CFD was just an administrative act following the CSD and was well explained. If the CFD is reopened/relisted a list of the category's contents should be provided (rather than tagging the articles with a category that would probably later be deleted/renamed). DexDor (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn Disagree with the G4, it is not a close enough match, and for that reason alone the close must be amended. Undecided about G10. It looks bad, but I don’t think BLP applies to the category per se, as opposed to the inclusion of living persons. WP:BLP would be limited to justification of depopulating of living persons. Was the “delete” close required to auto depopulate very large numbers of living persons from the category. Also against G10 is the fact that multiple respectable editors had participated without !voting “delete”. The INVOLVED is a very bad look and I don’t think the G10 close was justified. This is not to say that I support the existence of the category, and I read the discussion as heading to a consensus to rename. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The Autism quackery category had been applied (by me) to two living people: Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield (the latter had separately already been added to a 'Quacks' category, that category also now deleted). I rather wish I'd not bothered applying the category to living people which seems to be what has triggered this discussion! An Autism pseudoscience category would help to tie together a range of concepts including unevidenced treatments (eg CEASE therapy, theories (eg the mistaken idea that vaccination causes autism) and side-effects of treatment (eg Rope worms - an artefact from bleach enemas). Another possibility is Unevidenced treatments for autism, though that mightn't be so obvious for the MMR vaccine controversy, or rope worms, as neither are 'treatments' as such. Other categories already available don't necessarily focus on autism and it seems that there are enough problematic autism-specific interventions to warrant a separate and specific category (the reason why I created the contested category in the first place). That'll learn me ;) JoBrodie (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn for another admin to re-close. That and debate allows for a finding of either "delete" or "rename", and "delete" would be a reasonable finding for an uninvolved admin to make. But it's not enough to be right -- you also have to be impartial. Experience with BHG's closes tells me she is able to separate her own view from her determination of consensus and I therefore assume that she was genuinely impartial when she made her close. But impartiality isn't just about the closer's state of mind when they close the debate -- it's about your fellow Wikipedians being confident in you. Everyone has to be able to see you're impartial.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist The speedy deletion was probably just to the safe side of the line for the limits of admin discretion, and the overall close was not unreasonable but I decline to endorse where, as here, there is a reasonable, good faith argument that the closer was INVOLVED. I'm a great believer in process is important and the proper outcome is for a disinterested editor to close this discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Overturn/relist There was no clear consensus to delete. The closer was involved, the CSD rationale was over-stretched. An uninvolved admin should close this.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

11 January 2019[edit]


Recent discussions[edit]

9 January 2019[edit]

Dingonek[edit]

Dingonek (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Evaluation of consensus regarding the notability of this cryptid does not adequately consider the WP:FRINGE guideline. Although most of the "Keep" !votes say that cryptozoologists and credulous early-20th-century accounts are reliable sources and can be used to establish notability, the guideline states that "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" and few or none of the provided sources actually meet this requirement. My opinion is that arguments that run counter to a guideline should be discarded by the closer. I discussed this with the closer, Michig, and we have a difference of opinion on whether or not this local consensus can trump an existing guideline. –dlthewave 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please complete the following sentence: "I want the result to be overturned to ______". I've read your statement above, and I'm not sure which way you're arguing. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
"Delete". I feel that the "Keep" !votes contradict the WP:FRINGE policy guideline. –dlthewave 23:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete - as pointed out by dlthewave, the applicable notability guideline is WP:NFRINGE, and simply counting the votes to close on "no consensus" doesn't seem to have taken that into account. --tronvillain (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. Policy-based arguments better support deletion; a single source does not support notability, especially for a fringe topic. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. Strongly in agreement with discussion above. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse There truly was no consensus here. Experienced editors were on both sides of the argument and had the chance to interpret WP:FRINGE for themselves. While guidelines do trump local consensus, local consensus varied here on how to apply the guidelines. I also note three of the above !voters were involved in the XfD; if endorsed as a no consensus close, I would suggest trying again at AfD in a few months if the article has not been improved. SportingFlyer talk 04:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Was there though? I didn't see any evidence of keep votes even attempting to interpret WP:FRINGE. I just went and read through again, and I can't find one argument explaining how this meets that guideline. --tronvillain (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
"I'm satisfied there were enough !keep votes which addressed WP:GNG in the context of WP:NFRINGE that this should not be overturned. SportingFlyer talk 22:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm stilling waiting for how this is an any way meetings WP:GNG, as it couldn't be more explicit: We have yet to find a single source that meets GNG's requirement of "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." :bloodofox: (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Which isn't the point of a DRV, unfortunately. There were enough users who thought WP:GNG was met to merit a no consensus close. SportingFlyer talk 03:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Deletion discussions aren't a simple headcount, though. If the sheer number of !votes were what swayed the decision, it was an improper close. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not arguing AfD is a simple head count. I'm saying you have two groups of !voters who think very differently about the quality of sourcing in the article. That's a clear no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 21:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
One group is arguing based on established policy, the other is arguing against established policy. If the latter wants to change policy, they're free to go debate that. But they can't use an AFD to suddenly declare that FRINGE sources satisfy GNG. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, I strongly disagree with you. There are times when one side of the discussion is clearly against policy. This is not one of those times. The keep !voters are nowhere near clearly wrong, demonstrated through the robust nature of the discussion. I would be more inclined to agree with you if the keep voters were along the lines of "clearly notable, passes WP:GNG," but you have experienced, reasonable editors on both sides of this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse as closer. As I pointed out on my talk page, the argument that sources that discuss cryptozoology topics are unreliable because they are discussing cryptozoology topics is a bit silly. The argument above is that one particular interpretation of WP:FRINGE trumps consensus, which it doesn't. There was no consensus to delete the article. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC) I would also note that contrary to the 'single source' argument presented above, there were several sources identified in the discussion (and there are many more in Google Books). --Michig (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Nobody made the argument that "sources that discuss cryptozoology topics are unreliable because they are discussing cryptozoology topics". The argument was that sources written by cryptozoologists and their promoters are unreliable and cannot be used to establish notability. As several editors pointed out, there are many sources that discuss "cryptids" such as Bigfoot from a scienttific viewpoint, however these sources do not exist for the Dingonek. Firsthand accounts may sometimes be used as a primary source, but they would also need to be supported by reliable secondary sources. Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources, so having "many sources" is not sufficient to establish notability. The reliability of these unnamed GBooks hits would need to be assessed before they can be counted. –dlthewave 13:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem lies in the view that the only sources that are valid for an article on a cryptid would be scientific sources. Cryptids have an element of science, pseudoscience, folklore, culture, and downright bullshit. The argument that sources that discuss these from a non-scientific viewpoint are not reliable is fallacious. There appear to be several books that simply describe what has been claimed, what others have written, and sometimes offering possible explanations based on real animals - as long as these sources aren't just making stuff up from scratch, there's no reason to discount them as reliable sources. Indeed, some of these sources describe the Dingonek as "the stuff of legend and wild speculation" and a "fanciful creature", which hardly seems the work of 'cryptozoologists and their promoters'. --Michig (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Did you read our cryptozoology article? Cryptozoology is a subculture with close ties to Young Earth creationism that advocates pseudoscience that experts like Donald Prothero frequently compare to Holocaust denialism. Under no circumstances are these references in any sense reliable. Seriously, a little research goes a long way when it comes to pseudosciences. This article is not about a "cryptid"—itself an anti-academic term the pseudoscience coined to avoid the word "monster" and appear more scientific to the public in the early 80s—it's about a creature some big game hunters in the 20th century claim to have knowledge of. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
You are getting way off topic talking about holocaust denialism. I get that you don't like cryptozoology, but it's not relevant to the discussion and you need to recognise that your POV is just that. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'cryptid' as "An animal whose existence or survival is disputed or unsubstantiated, such as the yeti". The Dingonek is "An animal whose existence or survival is disputed or unsubstantiated, such as the yeti", therefore it is a cryptid. --Michig (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
You've conveniently left out the most crucial part of the OED's definition: "any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist". Additionally, that reference to Holocaust denialism comes from Donald Prothero's description of the subculture, which is quite on topic, particularly when you're arguing that cryptozoology source should be treated by Wikipedia as reliable. This is bizarre behavior—you're presumably yourself not a cryptozoologist, so why are you using terminology internal to the subculture to refer to monsters? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't 'conveniently' leave anything out - the description above is taken word for word from the OED website. When you resort to behaviour like this you come across as having an axe to grind and lacking objectivity and reasonableness, and as a result you weaken your arguments, which are then less likely to be given weight when closing discussions. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
You know, it's tough to assume good faith with a user who edits the a dictionary entry they present to back their POV (I wouldn't have noticed that you had altered the definition had I not been the one to add it to Wikipedia in the first place). At this point you seem to be deep in your trench and squarely aimed at getting these fringe sources on the site. I won't help you with that, but if you can find a reliable source discussing this topic somewhere, preferably from an academic source, I'll switch my vote to keep and add it to the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are claiming I edited to 'back my POV'. If you mean the definition of 'cryptid' above, you can compare it with this. And I'm not sure what you think my POV is, and what fringe sources you think I'm trying to 'get on the site'. You are not making much sense. --Michig (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I think there are people who reasonably believed that this article should have been deleted based on policy. But I also think that at least User:Bloodofox is not approaching the issue of Cryptids objectively. Instead everywhere we see the same WP:POVFIGHTER behaviour and the assumption that anyone disagreeing with that POV must be a supporter of Cryptozoology. The comparison to Holocaust Denial is absolutely unwarranted and distasteful in the extreme, and should be withdrawn. I do not think any of the !Keep votes were made out of support for Cryptozoology. Few of us have even been involved in previous discussion about Cryptids on Wiki. Most were simply previously uninvolved editors contributing on AfD. FOARP (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Nearly every editor here has come over from some other related article, and most of the keep votes have tried similar approaches to get cryptozoologist sources on the wiki elsewhere. This is nothing new. And as this article's primary author (and cryptozoology's primary author), I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here about POV. These corners have in fact crawled with members of the subculture in the past (and some editors, including no doubt some editors here, are in fact cryptozoologists, as their off-site posts reveal). If you have a problem with Donald Prothero's quote (where he compares the subculture to Holocaust denial and UFO abduction subcultures), take it up with him. It does a good job of quickly communicating the level of fringe that cryptozoologists espouse. Meanwhile, find a reliable source on this topic and I'll change my vote to keep and add it to the article myself. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
1) I'd never even heard of cryptozoology until 2-3 months ago when this campaign of deletions started popping up in AFD and have been insistent that it is pseudoscience. 2) You don't get to just invoke holocaust denial as a debating tactic by saying you're just quoting someone else. FOARP (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse Looking at the keep !votes in the AFD, I don't see them as going against the guideline which says (as for all guidelines) "it is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I do not think the !voters were acting in ignorance or wishing to flout any WP principles. The discussion did not reach even a rough consensus.

Thincat (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Overturn and delete Horrible close from someone, who days back was ranting about poor closes; favoring a zeal to delete stuff. Pretty clearly, his own philosophical beliefs have traversed into his closer's hat or that he is unable to weigh arguments.WBGconverse 14:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Get a thicker skin, please. WBGconverse 13:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Behave better. --Michig (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Renominate, with the deletion rationale being a failure of WP:V, zero reliable secondary sources. There are no suitable sources, but the discussion did not include an analysis of all the sources linked by the “keep” !voters. I think they all fail, but the case that all fail was not made in the discussion. Yes, the page needs to be deleted, but the case for deletion needs to be better made. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse Oyi. Discussion is a classic NC outcome. Keep !voters don't have great sources, but they do have reliable sources. Not for this existing (it almost certainly doesn't and never did), but for the myth existing. In an ideal world, we'd merge to the List of cryptids article. But my sense is we're deleting any entry there that doesn't have an article (which is unwise IMO, that's what lists can be good for). Hobit (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
What reliable sources are you referring to? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The ones cited in the keep votes. Yes, they aren't "high-quality academic sources". No, they don't need to be. If the article claimed this thing existed, sure. But as it is, this is an article about a myth. And these sources are fine for that. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
In other words, you're including the cryptozoologist sources, as somehow reliable sources, despite the large amount of academic literature we've accrued that describes the subculture as deeply fringe and at times outright compares it to Holocaust denial and often notes its ties to Young Earth creationism (many reliable sources on this over at cryptozoology). Cryptozoologists in fact do claim these things exist, often as living dinosaurs. This is an article about a big-game hunter's account of a fabulous beast in Africa, which may or may not stem from some level of tradition. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete. The Delete arguments here have far more basis in the WP:FRINGE guideline, specifically WP:NFRINGE, and therefore deserve to be given greater weight. NFRINGE says that for a fringe theory to be notable it must be "referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications" which are independent of the proponents of the fringe theory. Cryptozoology is a fringe theory, so sources written by proponents of cryptozoology are not sufficient to demonstrate notability of cryptids. This is not the same as saying that any sources writing about cryptozoology are insufficient, as it depends who's writing the source. Several Keep comments referenced a book by Bernard Heuvelmans, who our article describes as "probably best known as a founding figure of the pseudoscience of cryptozoology". That therefore disqualifies the source for the purposes of demonstrating notability here. Some other sources were claimed as evidence of notability, but they were all shown to have serious flaws in the discussion e.g. being more than a hundred years old, or being a children's book. This rather undermines the claim that these sources meet the "serious and reliable manner" standard of NFRINGE. Hut 8.5 21:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm trying to wrap my head around these arguments. People at one point believed in Zeus (and some still do). Most of our coverage of Zeus comes from these people. Obviously Zeus has enough coverage to meet any guideline. But it seems like the arguments being made here would put Zeus under WP:FRINGE, and I just don't buy that as a reasonable thing. Here I see a myth. Why can't we cover that with the level of sourcing we have? Hobit (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
      • No, there we rely on experts like anywhere else. In the case of folklore and its genre myth, we rely on academics: Example A, example B, Example C. We do not invoke fringe sources and we handle primary sources appropriately. We lack a single reliable, independent source for this particular entity. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
        • So you are saying we have no sources which reliably claim that this is a known cryptid? That WP:V isn't met on that claim? And you didn't really address my point. Does WP:FRINGE apply to Zeus? If not, could you explain why it does apply here and not there? Hobit (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I don't think a religious analogy is the best one to use here. The relationship between religion and pseudoscience/fringe theories is a controversial topic and religious claims are often deemed exempt from classification as fringe theories due to their widespread nature. For example Christianity is not usually considered a fringe theory even though most versions of it makes claims which would normally get it classified as such (that somebody could walk on water, resurrect the dead, etc). But if you do want to apply fringe theory standards to Zeus then I strongly disagree with your assertion that most coverage of Zeus comes from people who believe in Zeus. Most available reliable sources about Zeus come from modern classics scholars who don't believe in Zeus any more than other modern people do. Even if that wasn't the case the existence of some such sources would meet the NFRINGE standard. I do also think you're on somewhat shaky ground deeming this topic to be just folklore. It isn't a tradition with a long history, it's a claim made about a specific incident in 1910. Hut 8.5 07:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:WAX is usually a bad argument, but let's consider the many, many articles about apparitions of the Virgin Mary, for which the only sources are typically Christian-related, and reports of what the witnesses said. FOARP (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Uh, what? If you find fringe sources on an article, remove them. That goes for any article. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, I look forward to your next campaign of article deletions against miracles and apparitions from various religions. FOARP (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm assuming you don't edit much in these corners. I write and rewrite articles about folkore and religion topics on the site frequently. Point me toward the fringe sources and I'll remove them. I do it all the time. Or, of course, you could, per any of the site's many guidelines on the topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete with a WP:TROUT to the closer who seemed to put their thumbs on the scale if I am reading their rationale in this discussion correctly. The delete !voters had WP:PAG on their side. The keep !voters had their love of cryptozoology. Wikipedia is not supposed to work that way. jps (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - I'm not sure I'm allowed a vote here but we were all very clear that Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and that none of us believed that the subject actually exists. FOARP (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Michig: I'm sure it wasn't your intention but that message is arguably inappropriate canvassing, as it pings everybody who expressed one opinion in the AfD of this discussion with a partisan message. I suggest you notify the other AfD participants as well. Hut 8.5 08:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I note that most of the delete votes are already present here but the remaining one (USER:William Harris) should be pinged in here as well. Possible the keep votes just weren't as well organised. FOARP (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I was just giving the keep !editors an opportunity to respond to the accusation made against them, which I felt was totally unfounded. The delete !voters had largely weighed in here already quite early on. This edit looks more like canvassing to me. --Michig (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Notifications on relevant noticeboards is not canvassing. --tronvillain (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Relevant to the AfD perhaps, but DRV is (or should be) about judging the closure, not AfD part 2. --Michig (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
To be fair I do love it, in the same way I love Dr Who or The man Who would be...OK not that much. But I feel no more challenged by this then by the idea that Mr Holmes is not real or I will never get to visit the camp at Primrose Hill. I can see these things as fiction and still enjoy them. Now in a way this is closer to my interest in religion, why do people believe this crap. And that is the point, I see this as no more prosthelytizing then having an article on the Eucharist. And as we are so fond of casting about aspersions, another example of them not getting their way and so not letting it drop.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete as argued by user dlthewave above. William Harris • (talk) • 09:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse as per my preceding discussion. Absolutely none of the keep votes were of the view that Cryptozoology is anything but pseudoscience. We did not violate WP:FRINGE, a guideline. Specifically WP:PROFRINGE is against articles promoting fringe theories which this article by its simple existence does not do, and is anyway an article-quality issue. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Nobody has brought up PROFRINGE here. Do you feel that the Keep !votes comply with WP:NFRINGE?
Yes, because we're talking about individual cryptids as cryptids. We're not talking about them as fact. We may as well be discussing Pokemon. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there some reason why you're using the cryptozoology-internal word cryptid instead of the word the rest of the world, including academics, uses—monster? As a reminder, this article is about a lake monster. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
You insisting we only use sources that use the word, that making it the go to term?Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Huh? This whole discussion about the lack of non-fringe sources on this monster. If it's notable enough for an entry, surely there's some discussion from an independent reliable source somewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
You asked why he might have used the word Cryptid, that is a reason we might be using it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Wait, your argument is that talking about cryptids (ignoring the fact that calling them that concedes the story to appropriation by cryptozoology) as cryptids somehow exempts them from basic fringe notability requirements? --tronvillain (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I honestly don't care what it is called. I'm using the term "Cryptids" because that's what y'all keep calling it. If you want to call it a monster, that's fine with me too. I. Don't. Care. About. This. Subject. The only thing I care about is deleting articles that appear to be notable, especially when it's part of bad-tempered campaign. FOARP (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
This behavior is ridiculous, in bad faith, and certainly counts as obstruction to make some kind of point. I'm personally strongly for keeping this article—it makes for an interesting colonial case study—but I know we must first at least produce a single reliable independent source discussing this monster to keep the article from being yet another slipped through pro-fringe piece. Yet there's nothing on JSTOR, Google Scholar, nor any other database I've searched. I'm also the article's primary author, and I've examined all of the sources we have here closely. Not a single one of them is by any stretch reliable. If you're here to build an encyclopedia and not just stick it to your fellow editors, you're going to need to at least first brush up on this topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
You're literally assuming bad faith. I mean, that's literally what you're doing. Do you get why this behaviour doesn't help you get your message across? FOARP (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
At this point, the best thing you can do for this thread and the several others you've inserted yourself into related to this topic is to at the very least read cryptozoology. Seriously, get a basic understanding of a topic before you engage in discussion about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Did you notice the bit where I said I don't care about this subject? I don't care about it. I. Don't. Care. About. It. What I do care about is sourcing. Macleans is about as reliable a source as they come - but you're saying we should ignore it, and the academic sources. FOARP (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The MacLean's article is reliable? The one that announces that the monster has been "discovered" and discusses how very believable the evidence is for it? Yeah, you didn't bother to read it. And would love to see these phantom academic sources you've mentioned, as we haven't found a single one yet. Again, you'd do well to familiarize yourself with a topic before launching yourself into it. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse As above this does not "promote" a pseudoscience. I think fringe is being misapplied (or perhaps applied like a sledge hammer).Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse as per FOARP. Tamsier (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete A few statements from explorers a century ago that they think they saw some weird creature do not a notable cryptid make. Failure to account for WP:FRINGE but also WP:LASTING apply. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse Given that independent academic sources have been given (old sources are still valid sources), the argument presented is simply a dismissal of sources they don't like for no reason other than that they don't like them, and is therefore invalid and a misuse of WP:FRINGE. Hzh (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
"Independent academic sources"? Are we to believe that you think sources that state that the evidence for the Dingonek "is very positive and believable" and that the Dingonek is a "A New Monster Discovered in Darkest Africa" (MacLean's, 1918) and an eyewitness account of a "head big as that of a lioness but shaped and marked like a leopard, two long white fangs sticking down straight out of his upper jaw, back broad as a hippo, scaled like an armadillo, but colored and marked like a leopard, and a broad fin tail" (1910, In Closed Territory) are independent academic sources, or maybe the entry in the East Africa Natural History Society that claims that the In Closed Territory account might well refer to a lost dinosaur that wouldbe totally great to shoot—or are you chiming in here without having read any of the sources you're claiming are valid sources that people just don't like?
Please, people, take the time to read about what you're chiming in on before you vote for it. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I read. Of course I read it. Can you try to WP:AGF please? It doesn't matter what you think of the reference. What matters is what it says - what we think of it can simply be reflected in the way we write the article (i.e., not treating the Macleans coverage as a statement of fact). FOARP (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
If you read the MacLean's article before I mentioned it here, you certainly couldn't have typed that it was, as you called it, "as reliable a source as they come" with a straight face. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Maclean's, Canada's most respected magazine. Yes, I would call that as reliable a source as they come. And what you're doing is applying your own POV to what the source says. FOARP (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
As I pointed out on the Dingonek page, the Maclean's article is almost entirely a reprint of an article by Jordan (the Jordan that Bronson is repeating in In Closed Territory). Almost all of the scant sourcing thus depends upon primary reports by Jordan. --tronvillain (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, probable dinosaur in the jungle, plenty of evidence, very reliable. Maybe you'd be right at home with the cryptozoologists we keep mentioning, after all. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a cryptozoologist. That must be the answer. FOARP (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
We have read and understood perfectly what's written. Perhaps you have perfect 20/20 vision in hindsight, but that isn't the case when people encounter anything new or hear new claims. For example, we have news the last couple of days about Fast radio burst which some physicists claim to be possible signs of alien intelligence. Perhaps in the future people will determine that the sources of FRBs are perfectly natural and there is nothing artificial about them, but we can't decide what is true for now. If a journal discusses possible alien intelligence it doesn't make the journal unreliable, nor does it make the physicists who suggested alien intelligence fringe. The same is true when when we have first reports of dingonek, and it doesn't make the journal that reported them unreliable. In this case we simply need independent sources that discuss the claim, not whether the claim is true or not. Hzh (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
When an early 20th century journal claims that a dinosaur may exist in the Lake Victoria region, we're in deep fringe territory. This becomes a primary source, and by no means could it be considered a reliable independent source. Unlike Mokele-mbembe or the Partridge Creek monster, we lack reliable independent sources discussing what's going on here, so the article simply echoes what these sources say without any independent discussion: The article promotes what is today very much a fringe theory. We don't consider early 20th century racial theory sources as reliable independent sources for the subjects they discuss today for the same reason. Imagine what this site would look like were this the case for the rest of the site. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Your interpretation, and wrong. A wrong racial theory would still be a valid entry in Wikipedia, as would any other wrong theories that have been discussed. You are deciding arbitrarily what is RS or not. Hzh (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
An article on a racial theory with independent reliable sources, of course. A bunch of early 20th century sources on racial theory without an independent, modern academic source discussing them? Yeah, no, see this. Not reliable by any stretch, and that's exactly what we're seeing here. Actually, if your comments are indication on how you're operating on this site, I think someone might want to look into your edit history. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:AGE MATTERS applies here: "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed." These older sources, like many, would have been reliable at the time of publication but no longer reflect the current mainstream viewpoint. They may be useful for a quote or description of the outdated theory, but an article cannot be based solely on such sources. Articles on fringe topics do not simply describe the fringe theory; they also include the mainstream viewpoint for balance. I'm not sure how one would include the mainstream view if the topic is not covered by mainstream sources; this is one reason that our General Notability Guideline and WP:NFRINGE require coverage in reliable sources. Our guidelines do not make a special exception for fringe topics; if it's not covered by reliable sources, we don't include it here. –dlthewave 22:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you are deliberating misunderstanding what is being said or not, but no one has ever argued that dingonek existed, so you are using essentially spurious argument, and misunderstood what WP:AGE MATTERS is meant for. For a start, it is not meant for notability, and this discussion is not about whether the dingonek is real or not. Hzh (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned, our notability guidelines require the use of reliable sources, and outdated sources are not reliable. There is no provision that allows unreliable sources to be used to establish notability. –dlthewave 23:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
And I have already said, your wrong interpretation. WP:AGE MATTERS does not say that older publications must be wrong, but that where newer and more accurate information are available, then the newer and more accurate sources should be used. You are making a lot of assumptions about the creature or the journals that reported it based on nothing but your own personal view. What we see here is a lot of misuse of guidelines and policies. Hzh (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Would you not agree that credulous accounts currently represent a fringe view of the topic? –dlthewave 16:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I have already dealt with this above (20/20 vision in hindsight) and gave you an example that might appear credulous in the future. Please understand what people are arguing so we don't have to explain to you repeatedly. Hzh (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: At the very least, the intransigence and conduct unbecoming of an administrator exhibited here by Michig (talk · contribs) (including canvassing, badgering commentators, and personal attacks) is enough for me to think that maybe a trip to WP:AN is warranted to discuss a possible WP:DESYSOP. jps (talk) 19:52, 11 January 201l9 (UTC)
Well, if he hadn't pinged me and the other people who voted keep on the original AFD none of us would be here. Strangely enough, though, all but one of the delete votes knew this review was happening without being pinged. And if you really want to raise this kind of issue, then you should do so at WP:ANI and/or on the user concerned's talk page, not here in the discussion. FOARP (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The hope is that he sees the error of his ways and tones down and sometimes by outlining a possible course of action for an investigation, we can encourage reform. Most rational people do not want to go through more drama than necessary. jps (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
That may have been the intent, but it's likely simply to be interpreted as a threat when posted here. Better on their talk page where it won't look like a rhetorical device. FOARP (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Intransigence? Conduct unbecoming of an administrator? canvassing? badgering commentators? personal attacks? You are accusing me of all these things? Based on what evidence exactly? --Michig (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The evidence is in this very thread. If you don't see it, that may be a problem. jps (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe the problem isn't mine. --Michig (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe. On the other hand, you are the one with the administrator tools and the community imprimatur, so it seems to me that you should be held to a higher standard than those you seem to relish impugning. jps (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we might all focus on the issue raised by user dlthewave above, because anything else is irrelevant for the purposes of this page. William Harris • (talk) • 01:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse There was clearly no consensus to delete, looking at the AfD. If anything, there was consensus to keep but whether it's a keep or no consensus is irrelevant so that's besides the point and not my hill to die on. Smartyllama (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete, the proponents of deletion have convincingly argued that the sources are not reliable. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse I was not involved in the deletion discussion and don't edit in this area. Reading the deletion discussion, it seems to me there was clearly no consensus. If I judge the quality of the arguments, I would say there was !keep consensus. The !keep votes brought forward a number of sources establishing notability, including articles and books published by the East Africa Natural History Society, Maclean's, ABC-CLIO, and Routledge. The !delete votes seem to be based on two arguments: 1) some of those sources are old (which I don't think is a persuasive argument), and 2) some of those sources were written by cryptozoologists. The latter I also don't think is persuasive per the !endorse arguments above: our source of knowledge about Zeus comes from people who believed in Zeus; our source of knowledge about Jesus comes mainly from people who believe in the divinity of Jesus. A cryptozoologist might not be a reliable source for facts about cryptids, but they are sufficient to establish notability of a particular cryptid. If XXX is written about widely by cryptozoologists, then it is notable, and should have an article (of course the article should be clear that it's a cryptid, not a real creature, and that cryptozoology is like a hobby not a science). But those are all issues for the prose of the article; not reasons to delete it. Seems to me the closer correctly read the lack of consensus here. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse per the original AfD. Also I'll admit to having an interest in Cryptozoology, but I didn't cast my vote in the original AfD simply because of an interest in the subject, and I think my record as an editor of other non 'fringe' articles speaks to that. Might be a case of WP:AGF here, but I doubt the other keep voters made their vote purely out of love for the subject either Ryan shell (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete: the discussion did not apparently take WP:NFRINGE & WP:RS AGE, two key content guidelines, under proper advisement. The sources are primary and / or fringe and do not establish notability. There's nothing there that would be useful for a potential article, so instead of kicking the can down the road, we might as well delete now. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse The sources currently in the article are mainstream sources and are sufficient; there is no implication the animal actually exists.It meets the guidlines. WP covers notable nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cam we stop talking about users their motives, intelligence or competence. It adds nothing to the debate, and makes no ones case stronger. Can any such sub threads please be hated now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably too late since this is already basically a re-hash of the AFD, which DRV is not supposed to be. FOARP (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Local consensus can trump a guideline. That's always been policy: if local consensus couldn't do that, then DRV would be a lot easier than it is. But if local consensus does trump a guideline, then we're normally looking for quite a clear consensus with a lot of supporting reasoning. My view is that we should cover this cryptid somewhere but probably not in a separate article on its own. I think the simplest way to get there from here is probably to let this DRV close, allow the dust to settle for several weeks, and then start a talk page discussion about where it can be merged.—S Marshall T/C 00:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - This is just a repeat of the same arguments. Not much to add beyond what the endorse !voters above said and what was said in the AfD itself. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I would have !voted delete at the Afd, but DRV is supposed to be about evaluating the closer's assessment of consensus, and the NC close clearly was well within a reasonable closer's discretion. While the discussion and policy would also have supported giving less weight to the keep votes and deleting the article, such a reading was not the only proper outcome. I'm not willing to buy off on the argument that the fringe sources can be used, but the argument that the old books (from well before the current vanity press era) constituted reliable sources was supported by a number of experienced editors, and I don't think the closer was compelled to ignore them. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

8 January 2019[edit]

Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis[edit]

Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was speedy deleted claiming WP:G4, because a different page "Suicide of Katelyn Davis" about the event was deleted at an earlier point. However, the new page "Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis" is different in both references and content from the old page, so it should be evaluated independently on its own merits. For example, the old article was criticized for starting out with a casual DailyMail reference (and had a bunch of YouTube references), while the new article starts with the WP:RS The Independent (and has no YouTube references). The new article also has a section about effects and aftermath that wasn't present in the old, which further establishes notability and further demonstrates this is an entirely new article and should be treated as such. The old article was basically given WP:TNT and we started over. Remember, when applying WP:G4, "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". The new article came into being after a formal "Articles for Creation" process over three months ending in admin approval, which can be seen in the new article's logs. Personal note: I didn't create the new "Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis" article (and I don't know who did) although I did participate in improving the draft it once I noticed it was present in the AfC stream. Jauerback who speedy deleted this article has been contacted and suggested I make a DRV entry here. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Before debating specific references in the article, we should remember that "deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process". That said, yes, some content and references are similar between the old and new articles. Not every reference and sentence in the old article was bad. The important point is the bad references have been removed, and reliable references and content establishing notability have been added. Note the link https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/dad-irish-teen-who-took-10356470 isn't dead, but works for me. Also the link https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/katelyn-nicole-davis-12-year-old-kill-herself-suicide-livestream-video-live-viral-cedartown-georgia-a7523666.html was mentioned in earlier discussions as a reliable reference from a source that's actually good to use and that many other Wikipedia articles make use of (as opposed to DailyMail that the old article used). More importantly, this separate article's draft went through and was approved in the formal Articles for Creation process, so if people don't like the new content, then they should discuss it on the new article's talk page, or go through an official 7 day deletion proposal instead of just speedy deleting it. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment After looking at the background to this topic (but not looking at either of the deleted articles), I could imagine supporting a WP:IAR deletion without even undeleting temporarily to see whether the WP:G4 criteria were met (I suspect they were not). However, I would not endorse a deletion under specious reasons for speedy deletion. Are the articles such that it improves WP to ignore the strictures of G4 and just keep deleted anyway? Thincat (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment A G4 should be relatively easy to figure out - I don't have access to the historical versions of these pages, though, so I can't comment on whether G4 is met or not. However, the SNOW deletion of the article in September raised some very serious issues and I would expect a new version of the page to fix those issues and clearly demonstrate notability. Based only on Cryptic's reference analysis, I don't see how either of those needs are met. I would keep deleted regardless. SportingFlyer talk 04:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not censored (see WP:NOTCENSORED) so this page shouldn't be deleted or left deleted just because an editor finds it "shocking" or "too sensitive". There are many other youth suicide pages very similar to this one on Category:Bullying_and_suicide. There are also other filmed suicide pages such as Suicide of Kevin Whitrick which have been deemed notable enough to easily survive [deletion proposal]. This page should exist because it's a highly notable event in both categories, a unique case of a youth suicide that was filmed, which literally millions of people saw on social media. (That makes this the most watched suicide in world history.) Fortunately, because this case pushed Facebook and others toward increased scanning and reporting, an event like this shouldn't ever happen again! Anyway, if this iconic page is deleted, then we should also delete all those other less notable pages. But as stated before, deletion review shouldn't be the place we debate wider Wikipedia policy or even the content of this page. All we're supposed to do here is determine whether the speedy deletion was appropriately applied due to the spurious claim of the new article being identical to the old. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • To be fair, no one here has argued the article is too shocking or too sensitive, nor is this another bite at the AfD apple. A quick review of the available material clearly shows this article had multiple issues that would need to be addressed in a new version, were that new version to survive an AfD. The fact this was recreated under a new title less than three months after a snow delete AfD would concern me regardless of the topic. SportingFlyer talk 07:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree that "no one here has argued the article is too shocking or too sensitive". I was replying to Thincat above who said, "After looking at the background to this topic... I could imagine supporting a WP:IAR deletion without even undeleting temporarily to see whether the WP:G4 criteria were met (I suspect they were not)." That's a strong statement, and we don't want this discussion to get derailed. Anyway, yes, people raised three issues with the old article, which contributed to it failing AfD: (1) Old article had a DailyMail reference and several YouTube primary source references, none of which exist in the new article. (2) Old article mentioned allegations of abuse against specific living persons, which has been removed from the new article. (3) Old article didn't cover long term effects of the event beyond the news reporting, which has been addressed with a new section in the new article. But again, the old article is gone and isn't on trial here, and the new article passed AfC and was approved for article space after several iterations. Since the new article addresses all the old issues, it should survive AfD should it ever get proposed again. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I hadn't (and still haven't) read either article to see if I find them shocking. Rather, the topic seems to me unsuitable for my concept of an encyclopedia. Why, then, do I find myself !voting "keep" for so many articles I think are on useless topics? It is because I don't like to hurt the feelings of editors who have put in work on matters that seem important to them. But in this case it is not the feelings of the editors I am most concerned about. It is the feelings of those whose lives have been wrecked. I can't start to know what I'd feel if this were my daughter but I wouldn't want the tragedy incorporating into Wikipedia. Thincat (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse the article did "go through an official 7 day deletion proposal instead of just speedy deleting it", and it was deleted. We don't reopen these issues unless something has changed, and I don't see anything here. The main concern in the AfD was WP:BIO1E, namely that the subject is only notable for a single event which had little lasting impact and is only known because of a brief flurry of media coverage. There isn't anything here which comes vaguely close to addressing that. Of the "new" sources [5] was linked to in the AfD, so the participants were clearly aware of it and it didn't change the outcome, and [6] barely mentions the subject at all. Apart from that last reference everything cited is part of the brief flurry of media coverage after her death and doesn't demonstrate lasting impact. The claim that the case prompted Facebook to change its procedures isn't supported by the sources. The article also contained the same BLP issues as the AfDed version and all of the prose of the AfDed version was present. Hut 8.5 07:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, the old version of this article never did "go through an official 7 day deletion proposal instead of just speedy deleting it". The old article was deleted a mere 19 hours after AfD proposal, which is hardly time for anybody to even notice the discussion, much less participate. Remember, even WP:SNOW warns that "closers should beware of interpreting 'early pile on' as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up". Anyway, alas now the very different new article is also being stealth deleted behind the scenes, without ever having given a broad spectrum of editors a chance to notice or comment upon how much this topic deserves an article. That just seems wrong, and seems to be an end-run around proper Wikipedia process. I agree issues shouldn't be reopened unless things have changed, which is why everything raised about the old article has been addressed in the new (see above for details). The new article focuses on the event, not the person, which is why like similar articles it's titled "Suicide of X" instead of just "X", and uses {infobox event} instead of {infobox person}, which means WP:BIO1E doesn't apply. Links such as https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/dad-irish-teen-who-took-10356470 demonstrate how the event isn't a one time piece of news, but is still being referenced many months later and has had lasting impact. The only problem raised with the prose of the old version was allegations of abuse against specific living persons, which has been removed from the new article, so just saying some of the text of the new article is similar to the old is a non-issue without being more specific. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The AfD was closed early because of the very strong support for deletion and the BLP concerns (concerns which haven't been eliminated in your version, FWIW). Retitling the article does not address the concerns in the AfD, and some AfD participants said exactly that. Changing the infobox makes even less difference. Literally all the coverage you have managed to find of this person after the event is the sentence There was widespread horror when American girl Katelyn Nicole Davis, 12, ended her life in January and the tragedy was streamed live on Facebook written in an Irish tabloid five months later. If that's all the subsequent coverage available then the event has not had lasting impact. Your version still includes various accusations of sexual and other abuse by living people. The article also said that police opened an investigation into those claims. Two years later that investigation has likely concluded, so what was the outcome? We don't know, because the event is too low profile. Hut 8.5 19:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Forget about the old article! Suppose the old article never existed, and the new article is the first thing about the event to appear on Wikipedia. Now suppose you notice the new article after it got approved in the Articles for Creation process, and as you suggest above you personally believe that the event's long term impacts are weak. What would you do? Most would add a {notability|date=today} tag or such on it to allow the article to be improved and sources you like better to be found. Remember, WP:ARTN says, "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." If nobody finds anything after a while, only then propose a seven day AfD. An extreme deletionist would do a seven day AfD right away, which is technically allowed if a bit draconian. However to just nuke the article without even giving it a chance seems like censorship. Note that the old article never had any tags on it suggesting there was any problems with its quality (or if it did, they were added within the last few hours of its life). The old article was online for 19 months continuously without tags or even a hint of a problem, until suddenly without warning, within 24 hours it was "proposed" for AfD and deleted. Can you see why some are feeling cheated here? Note that even Jauerback who speedy deleted the new article admits "on my talk page" that he was unaware the new article had gone through and been approved in the public AfC process. Remember, the DRV guidelines say that "deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process". Even if you personally still find the new article insufficient in certain respects, I doubt anyone can deny a WP:GOODFAITH attempt has been made so far to address the old issues.
  • Visit the page Suicide of Kevin Whitrick. What does that article have that the new Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis article doesn't have? Katelyn Davis was much more reported on local, national, and international levels, and affected the literally millions of people who saw her death video before Facebook and such were able to get the upper hand. (Unlike other suicide articles, Katelyn's actual death is viewable online, and beyond that she recorded much of the last 30 days of her life, making this a one-of-a-kind valuable psychological perspective into the suicidal mindset.) This isn't an obscure topic. There are 35 separate support groups about Katelyn Nicole Davis on Facebook while there are 0 about Kevin Whitrick. In May of 2017, the page Suicide of Katelyn Davis received over 21,000 page views in the past 30 days. That's way more than all the other lower profile Category:Bullying_and_suicide pages (Suicide of Kevin Whitrick has just 650 in the past month). A general Google search on ""Katelyn Nicole Davis"" returns 140,000 hits, while searching ""Kevin Whitrick"" returns only 5200. I know that "Wikipedia isn't about things that are notable, but rather it's about things that have been noted" but this is a high profile topic that shouldn't be so quickly dismissed. Page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism#Arguments_against_deletion says, "It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia for information and inside find that the relevant article existed at one point but has been deleted. This discourages both Wikipedia readership and authorship." Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • We can't forget about the old article because you're contesting a WP:G4 deletion. If it's a substantially similar article, it should remain deleted. You're also continuing to make arguments better suited for an AfD discussion. I would strongly suggest familiarising yourself with WP:BLUD and allowing this process to run its course. SportingFlyer talk 05:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The "much better title" looks like a deliberate end-run around deletion, the text is pretty much the same and the same people are involved in both articles. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would claim the alternate title is another point in support of keeping the article. Multiple people are wondering why Wikipedia doesn't say anything about the most widely seen suicide in history, and are starting drafts about it. There's nothing sneaky going on here. The new article was a draft for several months, effort was made to address all the issues raised about it before, it went through the formal AfC process where everybody had a chance to see and comment upon the new proposal, before it was approved for article space. A "deliberate end-run" would be just creating a new article directly that's identical to the old and hoping nobody notices. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist I'm not sure whether or not the article should be kept, but the snow close was wrong. . A proper afd might have eliminated the need for this review. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • overturn speedy, list as desired WP:BIO1E says "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." An attempt to cover this as an event, rather than a bio isn't "an end-run around deletion", it is exactly what policy says we should do. As an event article, this easily meets WP:N and isn't in obvious violation of our guidelines, certainly nowhere near clearly enough for a speedy deletion. The SNOW closed discussion was about sources (which have gotten somewhat better, a paragraph here, a bit more than a paragraph here are probably the best new sources) and BLP1E (which doesn't clearly apply given the change to an event article among other potential arguments). My guess is that the sources remain weak enough we may well end up deleting this, but there is no need to bypass AfD. Hobit (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Also, in general, I think an article that makes it through our AfC process should probably be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a G4. This warrants a discussion IMO. Hobit (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I don't think it would have made it through AfC if it had the same title as the original. I personally would never accept an article at AfC if it had been recently deleted at AfD unless something had clearly changed, like a SNG being met. AfC clearly shows you how many times an article with the same title has been deleted, and this should be taken into consideration by those at AfC. (To be clear, I wouldn't decline the article on G4 grounds unless I could easily find a cache somewhere, since I can't see the history for a deleted article. I'd comment and leave it for someone else.) SportingFlyer T·C 08:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure, but we are talking about a topic that does have new sources (I provided two that I think are newer than the original AfD and I understand there were others), a new title (making it more compliant with BLP1E), and some new text. It also cleared AfC. I'm not saying the article should be kept, I'm saying it's not a clear speedy. And a G4 of that quite truncated AfD isn't ideal either (per DGG). Hobit (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The first AfD cleared a deletion review, though. I see it as settled. SportingFlyer T·C 21:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A possible compromise: If some don't like that the AfC process thread didn't clearly show that this is an improved version of a previously deleted article, then why don't we just move this back to draft space? We can add appropriate comments indicating its history before submitting it again. We can also add the two new sources Hobit mentioned above, which are high quality since they're published books, and which have NOT yet been included in any version of this article. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It did clear a review (I had missed that) but the discussion was sparse and the outcome was no consensus. I think further discussion is reasonable. Hobit (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. She was twelve years old, and she reached international attention by committing suicide on video. I believe that it's irresponsible for Wikipedia to cover this. The risk of encouraging copycat behaviour is admittedly small, but it's not zero, and in my view a potential harm that serious outweighs the relatively minor benefit of covering the event.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • There is some risk of that, I agree. But there is also the hope that it will discourage copycat behavior by understanding just how much it hurt loved ones. Also, it can help get people to think about the impact of bullying (and is used as such in one of the sources I listed). I believe it would be a net positive--but I certainly can't prove that. Hobit (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore and list at AfD. AfD is where we decide which articles we keep and which we don't. So far, we've taken several detours around that process. The AfD that was held was closed after less than a day. Then we had the first DRV. Then it was promoted via Articles for Creation, which doesn't count for much. And, finally, it was speedy deleted. None of these involve the community spending a full seven days discussing the merits (or lack thereof) and the discussion being closed by a neutral party. And, trout to whoever thought recreating it under a different title was a good thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I see I haven't !voted here so endorse having the article remaining deleted on the basis of my and other people's remarks above. Thincat (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

7 January 2019[edit]

6 January 2019[edit]

Archive[edit]

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec