Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:11, 7 October 2007 editUsaSatsui (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,949 edits →Slipknot's fourth studio album: E← Previous edit Revision as of 19:13, 7 October 2007 edit undoIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits →Denial of Soviet occupationNext edit →
Line 226: Line 226:
*'''Restore''' as per ]. ] 12:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Restore''' as per ]. ] 12:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''Restore''' - plenty of references in all kinds official and reliable western sources. It documents the difference between western and Russian positions, which has wide implications in international politics. Deletion procedures are not the way to resolve conflicts. If a more suitable name should be found, it should be resolvedon talk pages. ] 17:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC) * '''Restore''' - plenty of references in all kinds official and reliable western sources. It documents the difference between western and Russian positions, which has wide implications in international politics. Deletion procedures are not the way to resolve conflicts. If a more suitable name should be found, it should be resolvedon talk pages. ] 17:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''endorse deletion''' POV fork much of whose references even were falsified as they did not say what some editors claimed they did. The fork was created by a editor with a long history of disruption to grind an ax and it remained a piece of junk despite some editors tried to improve it. Nothing prevents adding whatever encyclopedic was there (very little) to an existing ]. So far ] remains valid. Hence keep deleted. --] 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:13, 7 October 2007

< October 4 Deletion review archives: 2007 October October 6 >

5 October 2007

Slipknot's fourth studio album

Slipknot's fourth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The AfD for this article states that it fails WP:CRYSTAL, and this was the reason it was deleted. I beg to differ, for reason I provided on the page.

  1. The article does not fail rule 1 of WP:CRYSTAL - The event is extremely notable, and is 100% going to take place. The Roadrunner Records website even says this, and as you know, Slipknot's are a Roadrunner Records label. Here is the link.
  2. The article does not fail rule 2 of WP:CRYSTAL - This rule does not apply to the article as it's name is not apart of the given examples.
  3. The article does not fail rule 3 of WP:CRYSTAL - The article does not extrapolate, speculate or have any original reseach. All information is sourced.
  4. And finally, the AfD cleary states that the vote was a tie, at four votes a piece, so wha makes that an automatic deletion. Common sense dictates that that means the article be kept, as the result was actually "no consensus" which is an automatic keep for an article. Jasca Ducato 22:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Fails rule 1 with first sentence

Slipknot's fourth studio album will possibly be released in mid 2008,

Failed rule 3 with a lot of unsourced stuff
How care for the tally - AfD is a discussion, not a vote; I weigh the comments and use my discretion in such cases as to whether to delete or keep. And this is basically a plan of how I closed it after seeing no obvious consensus at first sight. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 22:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
No consensus means an article gets kept, and the article does not fail the rules. All the top line says is when the article will possibly be released. And the link I provided proves that it will be made. Jasca Ducato 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse; the album doesn't even have a name, for crying out loud. It'll probably get made, and it will probably get notable. After that, an article would probably be warranted. Not now. — Coren  22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
To quote Roadrunner Records.com:


“ "It's going to be heavy as fuck!" promised Jordison. "It's going to be heavier than 'Vol. 3...' but just as weird and as experimental. We have a whole bunch of song titles, but nothing I wanna say right now."


Slipknot are due begin recording their fifth studio album in January:

"I've talked to the other guys a bunch of times over the last few months about the new album," he explained to Kerrang!. "I've told them to demo whatever they can so we've got as much material to chose from as possible. So be warned 2008 is going to be all about Slipknot!

”

This is confirmation of the album's release. Jasca Ducato 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So... wait till it's released then. It does patently fail WP:CRYSTAL. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no. This is marketing hype. — Coren  00:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Digitally Imported

Digitally Imported (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am the closing admin, and my decision was to delete the article. My decision was based on the fact that there are actually 3 keeps, 2 comments and one delete, however, if you look at the keeps, the first was that it is carried on the iTunes tuner service, and that this is a good metric for notability. The problem was that I couldn't really see where there is consensus that this is something that is a good enough metric for determining a station is notable - one other contributor agreed with Haikupoet, and to be frank this doesn't form consensus. The other keep was that there is 64,000 hits for DI.fm... but no explanation of what was being searched on, so I couldn't verify this info. The other two comments were totally non-committal.

It is perhaps notable that the AFD was not submitted properly, and may actually have meant that many who wanted to comment on the debate did not get a chance. I also think that it may be a good idea to relist, but figure that I should send to deletion review for others to comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I think "no consensus" would have been more appropriate, to be honest. The AfD presented this source to help w/ notability. Here's another, and being on iTunes helps. It's trivially mentioned here, here. All in all, I think there's enough to make a proper article, though it's clear that the original needs to be trimmed and despammed. — Scientizzle 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • By the way, kudos to Ta bu shi da yu for self-submitting this to DRV. — Scientizzle 15:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Cheers... I'm a little rusty on AFD, so might be making a few mistakes. I'm trying quite hard to give detailed explanations about why I delete/keep something. I'm noticing that more than a few AFDs don't give these... Anyway, sorry if my mistakes or decisions aren't quite right. I'll always add to DRV if I feel that my decision might need review. Ta bu shi da yu 15:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn due to above and (which are mostly reliable sources, although a few press releases seem to have snuck in). DI is notable because A) it is both one of the oldest surviving and most popular "net radio" stations and B) One of the first and most prominent groups to lobby against royalty increases for net radio. I think the sourcing is there to establish all of this properly. --W.marsh 15:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn - I certainly think that both Digitally Imported and sky.fm are notable enough to be included in wikipedia. Phasmatisnox 14:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn - DI.fm is quite possibly the largest dance/rave music broadcaster (based on # of listeners) on the internet.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - per nom 121.216.39.167 05:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

Previous short stub was deleted for lack of sources and content, so I have created a useful article on the same subject DollyD 11:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G4. This is an exact recreation of the text deleted via AFD2, with the addition of a supposed source "Juddery, Mark - Outside the Squares - The Bulletin (Australian edition), Vol. 123 Issue 6500 (13 Dec. 2005), p. 64-65" Since this source didn't change the article text, it wasn't actually used in writing the article. (I note that there was a DRV of AFD1 back in January 2006, before we were archiving deletion reviews.) Please let the nomination stand as a challenge to my speedy deletion, even though the nomination caused the speedy deletion. GRBerry 13:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Further comment - we clearly need to salt, as we are getting cut and paste recreations of the old text. Compare version deleted via AFD2 to top version (or to any other version from today. GRBerry 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Text is not an exact recreation and contains additional information and four sources have been added as well as external links. These changes address the reasons for which the article was deleted, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. DollyD 13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. No new information has been brought to light to make any change to the original decision. Subject's coverage in the world of comics remains minor. All subject's creation fail notability guidlines, ergo subject is not notable for WP.218.143.102.89 13:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. New veriable sources which establish notability have been added and ongoing editing will bring further new verifiable information. DollyD 14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatric abuse

Psychiatric abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closer cited a strong majority for delete, which is an unfortunate characterization, since AfD is not a vote. Notwithstanding this, the closer sided with the commenters who asserted that the framing was invalid, but further research during the AfD showed ample sources to support that violations of the WPA "Declaration of Madrid" represent at least one currently valid framing, in addition to the many historical examples. Since this framing was added to the article lead late in the AfD, it was not considered in the discussion. The article itself has a troubled past, and needs further research to reach an acceptable standard, but the topic itself is encyclopedic, and sufficient reliable sources exist to improve it, if editors would only use them instead of referencing the seat of their pants. The article should continue to be improved by regular editing, not deletion, by policy. Although the edit history and talk page are ugly, they should be preserved to guide future editors in covering this important, yet controversial, topic. For example, in doing the additional research on this it was revealed that the Declaration of Madrid is not covered in WP, and the limited coverage of the Declaration of Hawaii that was included in this article was lost with its deletion. What else will investigation of the additional unincorporated references in the further reading section and other related sources reveal? Dhaluza 10:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For those unable to see the article now that it has been deleted, I have copied my last attempt to reframe the lead using reliable sources below:

  • Psychiatric abuse is a generic term for real and alleged mistreatment of people under psychiatric care by doctors, middle-medical personnel or orderlies. There are several highly polarized views of varying standards about what constitutes "Psychiatric abuse". Actual mistreatment can range from simple malpractice, to human rights violations up to and including torture and euthanasia. The term is used by scholars to describe state sanctioned oppression and abuse against dissidents. It is also used by critics of Psychiatry to criticize mainstream treatments believed to be clinically effective, such as electroconvulsive therapy.The the World Psychiatric Association’s 1996 "Declaration of Madrid" is an internationally accepted standard for ethical psychiatric care, and many recent claims of psychiatric abuse cite violations of its provisions as the basis for this determination.
  1. ^ Gluzman, S.F. (1991). "Abuse of psychiatry: analysis of the guilt of medical personnel". J Med Ethics. 17: 19–20. Retrieved 2007-09-30. Based on the generally accepted definition, we correctly term the utilisation of psychiatry for the punishment of political dissidents as torture.
  2. ^ Debreu, Gerard (1988). "Part 1: Torture, Psychiatric Abuse, and the Ethics of Medicine". In Corillon, Carol (ed.). Science and Human Rights. National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 2007-10-04. Over the past two decades the systematic use of torture and psychiatric abuse have been sanctioned or condoned by more than one-third of the nations in the United Nations, about half of mankind.
  3. López-Muñoza, Francisco (2006-12-07). "Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry : Psychiatry and political–institutional abuse from the historical perspective: The ethical lessons of the Nuremberg Trial on their 60th anniversary". Cecilio Alamoa, Michael Dudleyb, Gabriel Rubioc, Pilar García-Garcíaa, Juan D. Molinad and Ahmed Okasha. Science Direct. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2006.12.007. Retrieved 2007-10-04. These practices, in which racial hygiene constituted one of the fundamental principles and euthanasia programmes were the most obvious consequence, violated the majority of known bioethical principles. Psychiatry played a central role in these programmes, and the mentally ill were the principal victims. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  4. Lebensohn, Z.M. (1999). "The history of electroconvulsive therapy in the United States and its place in American psychiatry: A personal memoir". Comprehensive Psychiatry. 40 (3): 173–181. Retrieved 2007-10-05. Networks of former patients such as NAPA (Network Against Psychiatric Abuse) have aligned themselves with various antipsychiatry organizations
  5. Okasha, A. (2005). "WPA Continues to Pursue Concerns About Chinese Psychiatric Abuses". Psychiatric News. 40 (3): 24–24. Retrieved 2007-10-05. The Madrid Declaration is concerned with the protection of the rights of our patients and the nonabuse of our profession.
  6. Munro, R. (2002). "Dangerous Minds: Political Psychiatry in China Today and its Origins in the Mao Era" (PDF). HR Watch. Retrieved 2007-10-05. The Chinese authorities' frequent imposition of this extreme measure on individuals (mentally normal or otherwise) whom they regard as posing only a "political threat" to society stands in clear and direct violation both of the World Psychiatric Association's 1996 Declaration of Madrid... {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  7. Helmchen, H. (2000). "From the Hawaii Declaration to the Declaration of Madrid". Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 101 (399): 20–23. Retrieved 2007-10-05. At that time, the WPA was concerned with the abuse of psychiatry and psychiatrists by some governments in the world. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This small sample of incorporated references from mainstream respected sources provide more than ample evidence that a valid encyclopedic context for this subject exists. Many more cited and uncited refs were added to the article during the AfD, and lost in the deletion before they could be explored further. We do not delete articles on encyclopedic topics simply because they are controversial, or because editors have done poor research in the past. The current state of an article is not grounds for deletion, lack of supporting source material is, and that is clearly not the case here.

Editors have expressed strong personal feelings over this article, but we properly devalue editors' opinions, and instead rely on the opinions expressed by published authors writing in reliable sources. I hope commenters will consider this before commenting below, so this DRV does not become simply an extension of the AfD discussion. Dhaluza 10:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Overturn - I have invited Chris to reconsider his close but apparently that has already been requested so I will post my concerns here. I dispute ChrisO's recent close of psychiatric abuse on two grounds. 1) IMO, it was clearly a case of "no consensus" with 7 clear keep vs. 9 clear delete. Both sides had strong arguments. There was no consensus. 2) I challenge ChrisO's neutrality on the subject as he is an anti-Scientology crusader and that topic has Scientology interest. He should not have been the one to close it. It is an actual or perceived conflict of interest and reflects badly on the project. --Justanother 13:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Please support the statement that "ChrisO is an anti-Scientology crusader," as I thought he was a Scientologist. I haven't examined the situation closely and I'm too busy and lazy to do so now, but if you add a personal reason like the bias of an editor you should provide a diff or two, please do so or strike out your statement--thanks. KP Botany 02:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Chris is an off-Wiki (and on-Wiki) critic of Scientology. His real name and history as a critic of Scientology has been mentioned and is well-known to the editors in the Scientology series but I am reluctant to disclose his RL identity without his express approval. He can mention it himself if he cares to. I have no objection whatsoever to Chris' editing in general and in the Scientology articles in particular, however he should refrain from exercising his admin responsibilities in Scientology-related articles. (I mean where such use would be at all controversial. 12:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)) --Justanother 02:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I thought he was a Scientologist for some reason--still, I would generally appreciate a diff with a comment of this nature, because if he is an anti-Scientologist and he improperly proceduraly and COI closed an AfD he should get at the very least a warning to make sure this doesn't become a habit of his, and a block if it is a habit. I don't like regular Misplaced Pages editors ignoring their personal biases and COIs in this manner at all, especially administrators. I don't care to or need to know his real name for any reason whatsoever. KP Botany 03:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, without my making a project of it, here is one. Nothing wrong with it, just that he is a critic of Scientology. --Justanother 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
If careful editors can differ about what side of the issue he is on, I think that shows he does not express his bias. DGG (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Let's do away with the impression of impropriety when it comes to administrative actions. KP Botany 07:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn closer's explanation (that this is inherently POV and OR) is hard to buy, even notwithstanding the obvious lack of consensus to that effect, the definition is sourced to a scholarly journal article called "Abuse of psychiatry: analysis of the guilt of medical personnel" and there's zero reason to doubt the person citing it. Sure, the article could have contained original theories and data, but the existence of the sources cited shows that a proper, even excellent, article could exist based on verifiable information. There seems to be confusion here along the lines of deleting a workable article as a punishment because it had some POV issues at some point, which obviously is something we need to avoid, otherwise George W. Bush and most other articles would have to go. Okay, it's a controversial topic that many would prefer to just not think about... but the sourcing seems excellent. If the sourcing is there... it seems a bit biased to delete it anyway. The close just seems to ignore the lack of consensus then go on to make an erroneous claim to override that lack of consensus... it should be overturned. --W.marsh 14:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn Although the deletion may have a useful temporary function as a "time-out", it seems as if there is encyclopedic content.
As to the term, the proto-article above refers to legally sanctioned or government-administered abuse of the professional image of "psychiatry" to provide cover for repression. In principle, any armed group (or otherwise powerful group) could perpetrate such abuse within its sphere of influence. This seems a well-defined and important topic. It seems too large a subject to be a mere component of, say, "human rights abuses". Many professions are part of such abuses (law, medicine, teaching, engineering, scientific research). Each might deserve an article. There may be some difficulty in limiting the subject matter if the government involvement in abuse involves some government or legal involvement (inspection, reimbursement, legal structure enabling private-sector abuse). Perhaps the same boundaries as would apply in a human-rights abuse article would be applicable here. Should "human rights abuse" be the 'main article' for "psychiatric abuse"?
The problem here is that this became a battleground among tendencies: defenders of the psychiatry profession and pro- and anti-Scientology. IMHO this makes makes precision and strict enforcement of a definition almost as important as enforcement of WP standards. I hope that strict enforcement of a definition is feasible. DCDuring 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I agree that originally the article (which was under construction when nominated) had WP:NPOV and sourcing issues, but don't see what was wrong with the most recent revision -- it was pruned aggressively (perhaps too aggressively IMO), and there was still a plenitude of solid content. I don't think this is an inherent POV fork any more than, say, corruption, corporate crime, or rape -- the title implicitly condemns psychiatric malpractices, not psychiatrists in general. Of course there is the potential for editors to put POV-pushing material in the article, but that's only a content dispute. Consensus-wise, the AfD was split roughly even; not really a "clear majority." — xDanielx /C 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I didn't vote keep nor delete in Afd because I wasn't sure about the article. However, I think that the article improved consistantly. Clarification of definition is still needed but it needs more time for editors to establish consensus. It shouldn't have been deleted now and some content was clearly notable. Options like merge or rename have been also omitted. -- Stan talk 01:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete properly AfD isn't a vote, so don't treat it like one when closing particularly contentious AfDs. Read WP:AfD to learn more. KP Botany 02:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn A totally confused AfD, with no consensus for anything--and such would be the only reasonable closing. Going by !votes is particularly inappropriate here since most of the debate was expressed as comments without specific keep or delete views--the people commenting understood that the situation needed further discussion, the closer did not. DGG (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm afraid that it's misleading to say that "Psychiatric abuse" is merely a generic term, because this term is used extensively within Scientology. As a generic term, it refers to a narrow set of improper uses of psychiatry by individuals or regimes. As a Scientology term, it refers broadly, arguably encompassing all psychiatric treatments (since Scientology does not appear to acknowledge any proper uses of psychiatry). The two views are incompatible and, from the standpoint of the academic literature, the Scientology view is what Wp calls a "fringe" theory. (N.B. Generally, fringe theories are given their own article rather than mixed with a mainstream view.) Originally, the article exhibited clear OR problems. While the article shifted during the AfD to deal more with the generic usage, the POV problems remain serious and, IMO, insurmountable due partly to the article title. Why have a mainstream article about a narrow set of abuses, i.e. the generic usage, under a title obviously associated with a Scientology's broad critique of psychiatry in toto? In addition, a POV problem is clear because nearly all the material (whether in the article's earler or later stages) could be placed either in Psychiatry#Controversy, Anti-psychiatry or Scientology and psychiatry. As a result, the article was functioning in effect as a POV fork. While there may be useful content in the latest version of the article, wouldn't it make sense to deploy that content in either an existing article -- or at least an article with a neutral title? (In the AfD, folks suggested several neutral titles that could be used immediately.) HG | Talk 02:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I almost agree with you! However, neither Psychiatry#Controversy, Anti-psychiatry nor Scientology and psychiatry cover psychiatric abuse but question psychiatry itself. Psychiatry#Controversy questions Psychiatry, Anti-psychiatry covers a movement and Scientology and psychiatry covers the Scientology view. But what about the generic term which defines real "recogniced" abuse which is even recognized by the WPA?! Regarding your concerns, you might be right. The term is used extensively within Scientology but despite that it is also used by scholars, press and even psychiatrists. A cult with 100 000 members worldwide shouldn't dominate the definition of a common term and shouldn't be the reason not to cover it. The odd use of this term by some movements and groups could be mentioned and explained wich would make the article even more valuable. -- Stan talk 04:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The scientology aspect may have been implied, buy the article could have stood without it. many anti-psychiatry people are not psychiatrists--there are quite a variety of social, political, and religious orientations which can lead to this stance. I'm going to withhold my admitted POV view about why such varied convictions have a common element that lead to this position. I suggested in the afd that the article be divided to cover the varied aspects. the version as it existed was for whatever reason outrageously unbalanced, but the solution is to balance it. DGG (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Rather than argue about this in the abstract, I'm willing to try to show how some article content may be allocated elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. This would include the professional ethics issues as well as the anti-psych aspects, Scientology or otherwise. This may take a few days and could benefit from input, esp from the various editors who suggested such an approach. I've requested a content restore, above. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Apologies for coming late to this discussion, but as the closing admin I stand by the decision to delete this article. As originally constituted, the article was a synthesis of miscellaneous incidents strung together to create a narrative - it was a blatant example of original research to advance a particular ideological position, seriously violating WP:NPOV. The original article was little more than a personal essay on "why psychiatry is bad". It underwent major changes during the deletion debate, during which some of the POV problems were addressed but the article became more of a dictionary definition of the term "psychiatric abuse" - however, Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. In addition, as HG points out above, the article's title and basic premise is insurmountably POV; as it stood, the article served as a mere coatrack on which to hang any incident that someone, somewhere has labelled "psychiatric abuse". Finally, I refute the outrageous charge of personal bias on my part. The article is about psychiatric medicine, not Scientology (though it's interesting that some people seem to be implicitly arguing the opposite - doesn't that support HG's contention that it's a POV fork of Scientology and psychiatry?). My decision was taken purely on the basis of long-standing Misplaced Pages policy. -- ChrisO 09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment and Reply There is no "long-standing Misplaced Pages policy" to close AfDs based on a majority. In fact, it's just the opposite. Please read it before getting all huffy at me when any admin on Misplaced Pages could have closed that instead of you with your obvious conflict of interest. Oh, and that is the reason you gave, the primary and initial reason you gave for closing, "obvious." That "several editors" pointed out something else that you consider secondary to the wishes of the "obvious majority" seems almost an afterthought--the beforethought should have been your not closing the debate due to your biases. KP Botany 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Policy was followed, article was POV essay and coatrack. Perhaps a new version under an NPOV title will survive. JFW | T@lk 09:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse. The reasons for the deletion are well put by ChrisO above. Dhaluza if you feel that Declaration of Madrid and Declaration of Hawaii need better coverage then you are most welcome to make or expand pages on them. In fact much of the material contained in the article either is mentioned or should be mentioned in their own articles - it was the synthesis into this article which was the problem. As I have said, expand an Ethical issues in psychiatry page by all means.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I question the reason for the deletion of what is an obvious attempt to create an NPOV article where there was an article with a dubious NPOV status before. Perhaps add another article or section to cover how the term is used in Scientology if you must. --Shawn K. Quinn 10:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Restore the article. Written not bad at all, and constantly imroving, very fast. Every improvement i wanted to do was done before me. When it was nominated for deletion, i already said (and if i havent said, i wanted to, i dont remember) that it was a very stupid nomination. There wasnt a majority on Delete. There was a similar number of those who said Keep. Many Keeps vern't counted because they stated themselves as Comment, and then said what should be improved. Which means a Huge majority said Keep. Besides, it's not a vote. By all the demands this article should have stayed. M.V.E.i. 13:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse There many, many things wrong with the article, and only a clean slate gave any chance to the little bits that were of any use a chance to be properly used. Circeus 13:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn This is a notable topic. There should be another topic on ethics of psychiatry, as Merkinsmum suggested. Steve Dufour 16:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse: The article at the time of deletion was thus a coatrack article which was certainly deserving of deletion. It was an original research synthesis of a number of different things which have at one time or another been called "psychiatric abuse" by various different groups. The term "psychiatric abuse" is of itself a loaded term that makes NPOV almost impossible, with wildly divergent uses by different groups: for example, some psychiatrists use it to describe medical malpractice in the fields of psychiatry, some commentators use it to describe political oppression disguised as psychiatry, whilst some anti-psychiatry campaigners use it describe all psychiatric treatment.If there is to be a new article, it should be a rewrite from scratch under Ethics of psychiatry. Declaration of Madrid and Declaration of Hawaii should also be created, and perhaps a separate specialized article on Political abuses of psychiatry. -- The Anome 18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a very interesting case. The subject matter is certainly valid. However, as many Netizens know -- and, indeed, based their decisions on --, the term is a classical Scientology attack concept, and as long as there are Scientologists in good standing on Misplaced Pages, there will be Scientology's propaganda in this article. Alas, Misplaced Pages's current policies and processes are incapable of dealing with counterfactual POVs and their pushers properly. Damned if you delete -- because then, Misplaced Pages can't represent this topic -- and damned if you don't -- because then, it's destined to become overflowed with CoS' PR. Accordingly, I can not vote either way, and my vote is Improve the policy, then revisit this question. When there'll be a policy facilitating weeding out propaganda from Misplaced Pages's articles, the article should be restored, and policed accordingly. If the policy improvement should, instead, result in deciding that articles whose wiki-style editing is bound to become incessant revert wars because some people feel such articles have insufficient propaganda content in them, the article should be deleted. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Scream 4

Scream 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Verifiable Information Released and Confirmed at http://weinsteinco.blogspot.com/2007/10/screm-4-officially-greenlit.html and http://videoeta.com/news/2366 Dane2007 06:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Denial of Soviet occupation

Denial of Soviet occupation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Breach of Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. No clear consensus was formed for deletion as the volume of discussion indicates, therefore the page should have been kept for further editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate, as per policy. Reasoning of closing admin flawed in that exposition of a particular point of view is permitted by policy Misplaced Pages:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV. Also the closing admin's view that the intent of the article is to draw a parallel on the Russian government position and denialism is unfounded, since there formed a consensus in the debate that a move to Russian government view on Soviet occupation may be appropriate (and to which the article was moved during the debate). In regard to charges of WP:OR regarding "Soviet occupation", 5360 hits in Google scholar , while "Soviet liberation" only gets 107 hits in Goole scholar Martintg 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Too bad it's not a vote. The arguments for keeping amounted to little more than cries of oppression or conspiracy. The article was a POV fork, and several people pointed at a way to improve the original (work on the "Official Russian position" section and spin off later if warranted). — Coren  04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a vote, but the votes are an indicator of the consensus of lack there of. It is not the role of the closing admin to weigh up the arguments and apply a casting "vote", but to determine if there exists a concensus for deletion. When ~40 vote "delete" and ~40 vote "keep" after thousands of lines of debate, there is no concensus. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion Martintg 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to clarify something. It will only be no consensus if there were equal deletes and closes if there is debate and reasoned arguments on both sides. However, the closing admin can be given some leeway in deciding which side has the stronger arguments. Obviously, when this happens the closing admin needs to also give a detailed explanation of why the article is deleted/kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The page went through two acrimonious AfDs and ended up by being deleted on both occasions. If Piotrus and company will seek to escalate the drama here, I will ask demon to have the page g4'd once and for all. The community has spoken, and more than once at that. Why should we be bothered to comment on the same AfD through endless rounds, just because Piotrus and several Estonians cannot accept the outcome? --Ghirla 06:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Acrimonious = no concensus. ~40 votes to keep out numbers Estonians by a ratio of 10 to 1. Martintg 07:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, I had no idea I was Estonian. Ironic that the same user who only yesterday cried foul over the "racism" that BBC allegedly heaps at Russians should be so eager to play the race card to dismiss those who don't share his view. JdeJ 10:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse as the closing admin. I believe my rationale speaks for itself. With hindsight, I could also have cited WP:SYN as a problem with the article. The arguments for keeping weren't all "cries of oppression or conspiracy", as Coren puts it, but there was certainly a strong element of this. I felt that, on balance, the POV and OR issues outweighed the case for keeping the article. I should add that AfD is explicitly not a vote and, to quote WP:DGFA, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." -- ChrisO 08:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I agree 100% with ChrisO about the principles but I'm afraid I fail to see the strength in the arguments made by those who wanted the article deleted. The most common argument was that it is a recreation of a deleted article. ChrisO himself has pointed out explicitly that it was not. Another argument that was echoed many times was that the USSR never occupied any other country. That is original research, as it is directly opposite to the position taken by every reference work I've ever read (quite many) and every encyclopedia in which I've looked at the issue. The third common argument was to say that this article is POV, yet never even trying to explain what was POV about it. Those who say so refer to sources such as the BBC and The Economist as "vehicles of racist propaganda" or to the Wall Street Journal as being useless as a source. I beg to differ, I think all three of them are very well respected sources in the English speaking world. Those of us who wanted to keep the article made two arguments that were very well sourced
1. There was an occupation of the Baltic States by the USSR.
2. There is currently a denial of this fact in Russia.
I would be grateful if anyone could explain, in a calm and civil way without the usual racist and russophobe accusation, the strength in the arguments for deleting the article. Thank you in advance! JdeJ 10:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Restore. As Coren puts it, this is not a vote but a question of argument. To date, I haven't seen a single person out of those claiming POV and OR who has even tried to define just what is POV or OR in the article. Not everybody likes having a country they might identify with as an occupator, but that doesn't change the facts. Is it OR to say that the USSR occupied some European countries? If so, please contact Encyclopedia Britannica and the Departments of History around the world to inform them that they are wrong. Is it OR to claim that there is a policy of denial regarding this? Then the BBC, The Economist, L'Expess, Dagens Nyheter are among the many media outlets supporting this OR. I would expect of those who claim this article is POV and OR to show the honesty to back it up with some examples instead of just claiming that, in the words of one of you, BBC and The Economist are "vehicles of racist propaganda". JdeJ 10:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Restore per Piotrus. Furthermore, while it is to be expected that discussing a shameful part of Soviet Union's history raises strong emotions in a number of people, Misplaced Pages's policies on articles discussing POVs are clear. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 12:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Restore as the nominator. As a further comment, we have 1480 references in scholarly literature and 773 book references , which consistantly establish the fact of the occpation (Someone please find and post a reference to dissenting view). We have the official Russian press release denying the occupation , we have a number of reputable media outels reporting Moscow's denial , , , , the US Congress passes a resolution asking that Russia stop denying occupation , the US Senate passes a resolution asking Russia to stop denying occupation and George Bush supporting the Baltic view of occupation (all this at a time when USA needed Russian support for Iraq), an EU resolution recognising Russia's denial of occupation . And some scholarly references discussing Russia's denial of Soviet occupation: "Almost all countries, historians, and international law scholars confirm the Baltic view that the Soviet ‘incorporation’ of these republics violated international law in force at that time. But the government of the Russian Federation continues to deny this view." and here discussing Russia's motivations for denial . All these references are included in the article, so could someone explain in what way this is WP:SYNT or WP:OR. Martintg 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn this concept/controversy is apparently notable in Eastern Europe even though in the English-speaking world it appears to be a POV fork - the tone has to be NPOV'ed but covering the debate is OK. Not to characterize the curren article as such, but WP has many articles covering historical debates (Historical revisionism) or even negationism (see Historical revisionism (negationism)), even more "out there" (Holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracy theories, sexuality of Jesus, AIDS reappraisal etc.) seems that the tent is wide enough to cover this one as well. "Allegations of Soviet Occupation denialism" anyone? Carlossuarez46 17:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Restore; I will repeat myself - denial of Soviet occupation is an actual phenomenon. Any encyclopedia, especially the "free" one should keep its users informed and should describe every possible subject. Tymek 04:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Restore as per Piotrus. Supergluez 12:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Restore - plenty of references in all kinds official and reliable western sources. It documents the difference between western and Russian positions, which has wide implications in international politics. Deletion procedures are not the way to resolve conflicts. If a more suitable name should be found, it should be resolvedon talk pages. Renata 17:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • endorse deletion POV fork much of whose references even were falsified as they did not say what some editors claimed they did. The fork was created by a editor with a long history of disruption to grind an ax and it remained a piece of junk despite some editors tried to improve it. Nothing prevents adding whatever encyclopedic was there (very little) to an existing Occupation of Baltic sates. So far WP:POINT remains valid. Hence keep deleted. --Irpen 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5: Difference between revisions Add topic