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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Ducato22:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Ducato22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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(talk)22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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!
Endorse. What the heck is wrong with waiting until things are verified before putting in the article? Why are we in such a hurry that we need to put this in now? We have time. Just wait until there's more details, then create it under the name of the album. Oh, and it's not a vote...the keep arguments in the AFD weren't based on good arguments. --UsaSatsui19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
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 yu15:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Scientizzle15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 yu15:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn due to above and [1] (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.marsh15:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Overturn - If the closer has doubts about the delete close and requests a review, no consensus seems the likely rough consensus. If you can't stand by your own decision or conclude that it should be reversed after reflection, then please let others close the discussion. It's not a good thing to be wishy-washy when it comes to deleting the hard work of others. Comment Here is some info. -- Jreferee t/c23:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Previous short stub was deleted for lack of sources and content, so I have created a useful article on the same subject DollyD11:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. GRBerry15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. DollyD13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.218.143.102.8913:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. New veriable sources which establish notability have been added and ongoing editing will bring further new verifiable information. DollyD14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new article. This new article addresses the lack of sources which plagued the previous article on the subject. Notability can now be proven with sources frequently used as citations on Wikipedia 203.220.12.19714:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-AfD Sources added demonstrate what may constitute notability but it is borderline. I suggest re-AfDing the newer version. JoshuaZ15:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article is now protected from editing. As I said, I have new information and wish to improve the article, but cannot while it is protected. DollyD15:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Nearly famous. Supposed sources are trivial fluff: what's on zine, fan stuff, a podcast, and an interview on community radio. Not worth wasting anyone's time on a third AfD. Angus McLellan(Talk)16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and send to AfD. Not speedy, because claims of notability are made, and these claims must be evaluated by a consensus, to by a single admin. `'Míkka23:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion - Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4 applies. After an AfD deletion, you need to present substantial new information to WP:DRV to have the article restored. See DRV purpose #3. Insufficient new reliable source information has been presented and I could not find any info about Patrick Alexander, Patrick A. Reid, Pink Chickens, Tobias and Jube, or Dot McSodden. Also, bypassing process makes it more likely that the article will not meet WP:A. Endorse deletion. There is no reason to send this to AfD since the decision about whether substantial new information exists is what DRV does, not AfD. -- Jreferee t/c23:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop editing my sig please. not cool. WTF is up with editing the sigs of nearly every restore argument and not signing your edits??? Creepy. Bobsbasement13:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete - All counter arguments thus far amount to "This is notable, sources exist" yet nothing of any real substance has been produced, even after two AFD and two subsequent deletions. Published, even nationallym does not equate to notability. To go to a third AFD would be going round in even more circles and wasting even more time. As mentioned above, until any of the subject's creations are worthy of note, by an obvious extension of logic, a bio article is doomed to non-notability failure.Hen Features23:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion until a proposed article appears in userspace that would merit a return to afd land or would be sufficient that we're convinced it would survive afd, it's a pig-in-a-poke and the article is proper G4. Carlossuarez4606:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong Restore I believe that the sources, of which at leastThe Bulletin and Digital Strips are frequently been used as a citations for Wikipedia and can be considered reliable, confirming the fact that the subject has been regulary published since 2001 with two well-known creations in nationally distributed, high circulation magazines including Mania, Krash, Hyper and Nintendo Gamer definitely constitutes notability. 203.220.107.7111:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Psychiatric abuse – Restored, sent to AfD. The AfD closer's reasoning, as expressed below in the DRV debate, is not unsound. However, even he stipulated that the article was improved during the course of the first AfD; it is unclear whether all AfD commenters had the benefit of viewing the most recent revisions, and the number of sources presented below. The suggestion that this article has OR/SYN problems, and that it constitutes a COATRACK, is serious and not without merit. There remains hope, though, that further discussion can resolve these difficulties. By the numbers, this DRV is fairly evenly split -- the course of argumentation provides good reason to believe that five more days at AfD could substantially improve the article, and clarify the community's feelings regarding it. – Xoloz12:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
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? Dhaluza10:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[1] 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[1][2] and euthanasia.[3] The term is used by scholars to describe state sanctioned oppression and abuse against dissidents.[1][2] It is also used by critics of Psychiatry to criticize mainstream treatments believed to be clinically effective, such as electroconvulsive therapy.[4]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.[5][6][7]
^ abcGluzman, 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.
^ abDebreu, 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.
^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)
^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. Dhaluza10:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Justanother13:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Botany02:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)) --Justanother02:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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 Botany03:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.marsh14:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Procedurally, I had no sense from the AfD discussion that there was consensus. Thus the administrator must have been relying on hhis own judgment. Accordingly, a Caesar's wife standard should apply to the selection of administrator to do the closing. It would appeat that ChrisO's expressed attitude toward Scientology would raise questions and that someone else should have done it. The tainted nature of the closing would seem to require that it be undone or that the closing record be evaluated by one or more admins not involved in the discussion, in Scientology, or psychotherapy, or, at least, psychiatry. DCDuring19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, in my striken comments I was continuing the AfD. 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) DCDuring19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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." — xDanielxT/C23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 talk01:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Botany02:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Erm, you're ignoring the basis of the delete arguments, which was on the basis of OR and that the construction of an article in this form made it an attack on a profession. Much of the information in and of itself was valid and indeed is elsewhere on WP.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk02:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 talk04:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Rather than argue about this in the abstract, I'm willing to try to show how some article content may be allocated elsewhere in Wikipedia. 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 | Talk17:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy. -- ChrisO09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Added). The overturn arguments that have been presented aren't very convincing. Many of them are attempts to re-run the AfD ("it's a notable topic, so it must have an article!") - as WP:DRV#Purpose says, "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." A number of claims have been made of bias on my part, which is nonsense given that I had no previous involvement with this article, nor have I ever expressed a view on Wikipedia (or anywhere else as far as I know) for or against psychiatry. A majority of editors supported deletion, and I judged (as set out above) that the arguments advanced by the deletion side were convincing. I recommend that editors read WP:DGFA and pay particular attention to the following passage: "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. ... Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions." The bottom line is that whichever way I closed the AfD, one side or the other (or both) was bound to complain. That's an inevitable part of closing any controversial AfD and the various attacks and insinuations about my supposed motives aren't unexpected. Closing it as a deletion was supported by policy and well within admin discretion. -- ChrisO01:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The DRV process was not used to continue the AfD as you assert--in fact I added a comment to that effect at the start. The reason for this DRV was both to point out that your closing statement indicated debate itself was interpreted incorrectly, and that significant new information added to the article during the AfD was not considered in the discussion, and to point out the deletion decision was contrary to policy. The passage I added above indicates that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, so that new argument falls flat. Closing a controversial AfD may be a thankless job, but that is not an excuse not to do a good job of it. The fact that you have repeatedly had to modify and expand your deletion rational is a consequence of your own actions, and the frustration you are expressing here should be directed at yourself, not the community. Dhaluza08:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Reply There is no "long-standing Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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."[2][3] 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 Botany18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments in support of your closing decision all relate to the article itself, not the discussion, which gives the impression that you were primarily evaluating the article rather than the discussion in closing with delete. This gives the impression that you were actually casting a super-vote, rather than being an impartial mediator, despite your denial of bias. Dhaluza11:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. All of the grounds that I cited above (the "long-standing Wikipedia policies" that I alluded to) were articulated during the AfD debate, and I found them convincing reasons to delete rather than keep the article. Policy trumps consensus. -- ChrisO18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the dictiionary argument was never made in the AfD, that argument is new to this discussion, and uniquely your own. Also policy never trumps true consensus--policy is derrived from consensus. You may ignore arguments contrary to policy in deciding rough consensus at AfD, but you must ignore them equally from all. Dhaluza21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that "policy never trumps consensus" is complete nonsense and shows that you don't understand how policy works. WP:NPOV and WP:OR are non-negotiable and cannot be overridden by editors. If there had been 100 editors claiming a right to override OR and only one arguing against that proposition, the dissenting editor would have won the argument. Policy is established by the Wikipedia community as a whole - it can't be overridden by editors who don't like what it requires. -- ChrisO21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me refer you to the very first line of WP:NPOV: "According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." " -- ChrisO23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's the NPOV policy (another core principle). I don't see that on WP:OR, nor do I see anything else to support that "policy trumps consensus". --UsaSatsui23:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Policy trumps consensus" has been the standard for a very long time. To quote WP:DGFA: "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." -- ChrisO00:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are taking this out of context. Policy only trumps narrow consensus, it cannot trump broad community consesus, because that is what creates policy in the first place. Policy must never be allowed to take on a life of its own or followed blindly into the woods. The NPOV example you cite is a special case of an existential threat to WP from libel lawsuits, and this is why Wales has called it non-negotiable. But I have not seen anyone who has seriously argued that we should ignore NPOV in this case (although there are disagreements over how to acchieve it), so that's a red herring you have thrown in to this discussion. You did not address why, as the closer, you are the one making new arguments at DRV. This is rather unusual in my experience--it is ususally the partisans who do this. Dhaluza11:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Policy was followed, article was POV essay and coatrack. Perhaps a new version under an NPOV title will survive. JFW | T@lk09:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Quinn10:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I stand by my original comments at the AfD. Just because the majority was favoured doesn't mean it was wrong... Spawn Man10:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -if ever recreated, rename as ethics of psychiatry as that is what the sources are talking about, and if they use the words psychiatric abuse, that is because 'abuse' is not an uncommon word in the english language.Merkinsmum12:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Exactly not a vote...we dont keep because of ILIKEIT either - the basis of the delete arguments, which was on the basis of OR and that the construction of an article in this form made it an attack on a profession. Much of the information in and of itself was valid and indeed is elsewhere on WP.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Circeus13:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Anome18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia, there will be Scientology's propaganda in this article. Alas, Wikipedia's current policies and processes are incapable of dealing with counterfactual POVs and their pushers properly. Damned if you delete -- because then, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)[reply]
I'm not sure about this, but I think giving people who are willing to abuse Wikipedia ammunition in the form of administrative impropriety is going to create more problems than we need. The article was a worthless piece of crap. The topic being developed well is "abuse in the mental health institution," not necessarily "psychiatric" abuse. The state-sponsored torture with psychiatrists as a tool is a different article. Whoever the problem is with dealing with this article, I'm disappointed in the lack of care in handling the issue. It could have been a clean delete that didn't lend itself to revisiting the issue. But when that does not happen, even more issues arrise because of the failure to deal in a straight forward matter. It's siimple: if you have biases one way or the other, don't close the AfD then let your biases become yet another issue to waste valuable editing time over. Good comments, though, Digwuren. Propaganda is rather well used by all sides in most debates these days. KP Botany19:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The root cause of the problem is not bias in closing the AfD, it was bias in starting it, or more specifically bringing a content dispute to AfD contrary to policy. AfD is not a dispute resolution process and deleting an article is not the way to improve its content, or Wikipedia's coverage of a subject area. Dhaluza11:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Whether or not the AfD majority was "delete" should have no bearing on whether or not the article was deleted. For this reason, I suggest that the article be restored and immediately brought to AfD to determine the consensus to keep or delete. Happy editing, ( arky )19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the previous AfD involving the article was closed because of a "majority to delete", and, since a majority vote doesn't determine consensus, I think the article deserves another shot there (if only to be deleted again). Hope that explains things, and happy editing, ( arky )00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - those seeking overturn on basis that information was factual and well sourced (indeed the lengthy commentry in the AfD), are I feel missing what should have been the point of the objection to the article; namely the problems of its very remit & scope. Likewise pro/against scientology discussion seems off-topic as the article was not about merits or otherwise of psychiatry itself. That certain events have occured was, I agree, included with reasonable citations to verify. The problem was the article title and the scope of items that were felt appropriate to be included - and so forming a synthesed overall topic of unrelated parts (the parts singely do exist, not the given form of the collection). Clearly very real abuses of the use of psychiatry were made by some authoritarian regimes, but this is not to say that those with real psychiatric illness were not then appropriately/poorly managed by psychiatric services. That scientology holds that psychiatry is the wrong approach to deal with mental illness, is irrelevant to appropriateness of including these topics as being notable here in wikipedia, as surely there is universal belief that governments should not detain its disenters in psychiatric hospitals. The second group of cited cases involved cases of patients being sexually abused by other patients or the guards/nursing staff and had nothing to do with psychiatry itself or indeed state-authorised repression (ie no bearing on what individual diagnoses were nor on what treatment they were or were not supposed to be given, or even whether one feels that psychiatric illness even exists), but rather the abuses had every thing to do with supervision of institutional inmates, management of institutions and issuses of independent review body access & inspection. Hence these examples were not problems with psychiatry but with institutions (and again I do not primarily dispute any of the examples in the article or that citations were given) and so applies equally to prisons, boarding schools etc and of course these 2 examples are not directly to do with a county's court proceedural system or a school's quality of science teaching. It was the inappropriate mixing of state abuse of pschiatric internment together with cases of (unauthorised) abuse of inmates that, to me, seemed to be irredemably at fault with the article and consituting original research and synthesis to link (by inclusion) in a single article. I would have no problem with specific articles on "State misuses of pschiatry" & "Abuses of institutional inmates" (need slightly better phrased titles). So sure, recall the details and the relevant citation details into more appropriately focused articles. But I doubt scientologists, with very differing views on the assumptions of psychiatric illness, hold any different views from the non-scierntologists over the awful cases of Russian detention of disidents, or the utter incompentance of management who fail to watchout for and prevent sexual abuse of inmates - we all agree these were bad things, so lets move away from Scientology issues to the real flaws in the combined structure of the article and its proposition for deletion, and allow the notable cases to be described in appropriate titled/scope articles. David RubenTalk22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of what you say. Unfortunately, we can't move away from the Scientology issue because the article was on a topic considered dear to Scientologists deleted by a known anti-Scientology editor. The Scientology issue need not have been raised at all, had the article's AfD been closed for a proper reason (not for a majority vote) and closed by a non-biased party. KP Botany23:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this rather broad and overarching definition of synthesis as being discussion of a collection of similar but different things called by the same name, and I think this is why WP:NOR only addresses synthesis to advance a point. But even if we accept this view, that still does not preclude reframing this article in summary style disambiguation to point to the various topics you outline, which is done through normal editing, not deletion. Dhaluza11:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, but without prejudice to recreating under a more neutral title and purview. As I commented at the AfD, I think this deletion was entirely proper. This is a case of a variety of notable incidents being shoehorned into a WP:COATRACK article. I think this can be fixed with editing and, ideally, restrictions on egregiously POV-pushing accounts, but I would strongly suggest starting fresh here. I or another admin can provide material from the deleted article to use. If the topic is political abuse of psychiatry, then there are plenty of solid sources as the DRV nominator has mentioned, and an article could be (re-)created. But the WP:COATRACKy anti-psychiatry stuff needs to be presented in the proper context of articles which already exist, rather than being POV-forked here and lumped in with actual, neutrally documented abuses of psychiatry. MastCellTalk23:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Psychiatric abuse will be a necessary DAB or redirect page. I don't see how it is in any way a matter of WP policy either psychiatrists or CoS members like or don't like the title of the article. The main question ought to be whether there might be users who might be looking for the subject matter and might not be able to find it because it was not under the title that they thought of. Whether someone is looking for material about how psychiatry has been abused by government or how it has abused patients, they might well recollect a phrase they heard from their CoS friend or some flyer. Why should that not lead them to where they want to go? Even if all the content of "Psychiatric abuse" were deleted, the redirect or DAB page should remain. DCDuring00:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; regardless of whose it is, the article is currently a coatrack of POV snippets. No prejudice against a clean recreation (although I'd prefer userspace first), but even then I expect the title could be made a little more neutral. — Coren(talk)01:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the fact that you have copied some of the content elsewhere now requires at least a history only undelete under the GFDL license requirements. When pasting material, a wikilink back to the source is required in the edit summary (the notes in your workshop copy are not sufficient). Dhaluza11:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Thanks, good point Dhaluza. While I work on that, let me ask a question. (Sorry in advance if this is the wrong forum.) Without prejudicing the outcome of this DRV, what objections would be raised to my recreating Psychiatric abuse as a disambiguation page, as others have recommended, to guide readers? Thanks. HG | Talk14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to wait for the results of this DRV before re-creating anything. The result could be to overturn, or the article could also be recreated from scratch if the deletion is upheld because the existing content was not usable (which does not seem to be supportable since you were able to re-use some content). Dhaluza15:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Meanwhile, here's the sample dab. Incidentally, as it turned out, there wasn't much useful content that wasn't already covered by existing articles. Well, except for something on professional ethics, which arguably isn't about abuse itself. HG | Talk15:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse With iffy consensus, the closure was within admin discretion. NOR synthesis is the strongest argument Chris lays out in his decision making. Marskell11:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion with "iffy" consensus? What kind of policy is this? We don't give admins discretion to delete, we require them to evaluate the discussion to determine if rough, not iffy, consensus exists. If no rough consensus for delete exists, the default is keep, not the admin's judgment. Dhaluza11:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do, in fact, give admins discretion. "We require them to evaluate the discussion to determine if rough, not iffy, consensus exists." So it is a vote then? Just count the numbers? No, it's consensus within policy. The closer has laid out serious POV and NOR policy violations. Marskell12:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a vote, AfD is an arbitrated process with a threshold of "rough consensus" for reaching a decision. For this process to work, the arbitrator (closing admin) must not only have a NPOV, they must not do anything to suggest that they have a conflicting POV. This close fails on both counts. The closer not only has previous involvement expressing opinion on similar subjects that creates a perception of possible bias, he also makes arguments supporting a POV as his own, rather than citing others expression of this POV. This is not the kind of discretion we either give admins, or that they should expect to get from the community. And your suggestion that we lower the standard from rough to "iffy" consensus does not represent community consensus, nor is it likely to attract it. Dhaluza14:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The closer not only has previous involvement expressing opinion on similar subjects that creates a perception of possible bias" is outside the ambit of DRV. You are essentially accusing the admin of bad faith; if you want to discuss a pattern of behaviour, this is not the right forum. If "rough consensus" is in obvious violation of policy it is within admin discretion to act against that consensus—the title of this article, let alone the content, was a NPOV violation. When I say "iffy" I mean that the 60-40% range presents a case that could go either way. The admin must choose based on the strength of the arguments. Marskell15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that discussion of possible conflict of interest is outside the scope of DRV and I disagree that raising that question is an accusation of bad faith. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators raises the question of conflict of interest specifically:
As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it.
Therefore, it is entirely within the scope of DRV to look at that issue. I do not know if ChrisO participated in discussion on the relevant pages and I do not have to find out. It is not a far reach from that guideline to realize that someone that has made a bit of a career both on-wiki and off-wiki of "debunking Scientology myths" should NOT be the one to delete an article that some say smacks of Scientology and Scientology "myth". And I am not accusing Chris of "bad faith", simply of making an error in not realizing that he had a conflict of interest issue. And is that not what we do EVERY time we bring an article here for review, "accusing" the closer of making an error? This is the forum to discuss both the manner of closure and the nature of the closing admin as regards a real or perceived conflict of interest. --Justanother14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a 'last word' conversation? I've had my share of those lately, so I hope not. "...don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in." Did ChrisO participate in this particular discussion? If not, I extend him the same good faith I extend to any editor. If the issue is "someone that has made a bit of a career both on-wiki and off-wiki of "debunking Scientology myths" should NOT be the one to delete an article ", then you are, in fact, outside the ambit of DRV. Was this a sound close? Yes, it was, IMO. RfC is over there Marskell22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Last word" meaning who gets the last word? IDK but you made a couple of new arguments and said that I, for one, was accusing the admin of bad faith. Sorry if you have a problem with my desire to respond to your arguments. You can have the last word since I guess you want it. --Justanother23:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the frustration of seeing one half of an argument being taken to task endlessly. It's not as if the overturns are being systematically argued over. Marskell19:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't fret. This may be an indication that the overturn arguments simply haven't merited much need for further rebuttal. Which overturn argument(s) do you find (or fear to be) compelling, Marskell? HG | Talk22:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I only see one overturn that could be interpreted that way (perhaps you could point out the rest?). Most of the overturn arguments are actually addressing the interpretation of the AfD discussion, which is proper for DRV. Many of the endorse arguments are addressing the article itself, labeling it as POV, OR, Coatrack, etc., which could reasonably be interpreted as WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Dhaluza00:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, no, I didn't participate in any discussion involving this article. I have no particular views pro or anti psychiatry, so I certainly can't be accused of bias in that direction. -- ChrisO21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to pick at the overturn arguments. State your peace and move along. And my principal argument was not that I felt it was POV, but that it was within Chris' discretion to interpret the AfD as such. Marskell12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll add a question: what does "not a vote" mean? It means that arguments are weighed, not just numbers. The closing admin has clearly explained how he interpreted the arguments. Marskell11:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, for all of the valid reasons already given in the AfD and explained above by others. It was an original research POV synthesis of unrelated topics gathered under a POV article title. Separate articles could be created to cover, for example, Soviet or Chinese state political abuses under the guise of psychiatry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me - that being part and parcel of the issue; self-serving so-called "diagnoses" and abusive "treatment" by so-called "mental health professionals". Long history thereof. But then I am the Scientologist so I may have a predictable POV. However I am not sure that your comment speaks to the propriety of the AfD close, it seems more suited to an AfD discussion itself. Do you think the AfD was closed properly?--Justanother17:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The closing was rather sudden, I must admit. It took me by surprise, but then, I don't know the rules about how long these sorts of discussions are supposed to linger on. But if I had known it was going to be suddenly deleted I would have put the parts I worked and sourced correctly into my sandbox first. --Mattisse17:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I should have said was that I had no sense that there was a consensus so I was quite surprised when the article was deleted. As I said above, it was unexpected and would have saved a few referenced paragraphs I put in there to use on something else. --Mattisse20:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn. The argument "coatrack" is invalid. The definition of the term in the title is not invented. The given examples are what they are: examples, and not a way to promote a certain theory, i.e., the article is not an OR essay. The article may easily be converted into Wikipedia:Summary style series about psychiatric abuse. The root article does not have to be large and include details of specific cases, i.e., the article is easily salvageable by heavily trimming its subsections about particular cases. There are quite a few references about psychiatric abuse in general, not just about Soviet psikhushkas or various sects. `'Míkka23:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. If the psychiatrist actions do not violate the laws of the local area, it is POV to include the Scientologist view that such actions still constitute abuse. If the psychiatrist actions do violate the laws of the local area, then the Scientologist view is irrelevant. The article was nothing more than a POV fork designed to elevate the Scientologist anti-psychiatry movement's views to those of the legal definition of negligence and political/human rights abuse as in the Soviet Union. DGG's AfD post was clear and the closer appears to have understood from DGGs post and the other posts that this article was nothing more than a POV fork. -- Jreferee t/c00:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore the article. There are numerous well documented examples of psychiatric abuses in many countries, including former Soviet Union. These cases have nothing to do with Scientology.Biophys01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice. The article's subject certainly deserves a place, however a clean start and NPOV in the title as well as in content is necessary if it is to be an encyclopedic article rather than an exposure. As it was, deletion is endorsed. Recreation of an article about the subject is also strongly supported JennyLen☤ 10:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree with the above statement that any talk of restoring etc. must include a change to a NPOV title that more clearly reflects the content of the article. --Mattisse17:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn: Psychiatry has a both long history of bold (though pitifully ineffective) efforts at progressing beyond primitive therapies as well as a lasting legacy of nefarious abuses, such as Zane Parzen's serial assaults (and the trail of suicides from Chicago to San Diego that he left in his wake). Suppression of the sort of significant facts about the history of psychiatry, that the article should lay bare (e.g., Eli Lilly's systematic legal efforts to whitewash the tragic scandal surrounding its abusive off label prescription marketing campaigns), would simply be dead wrong. Ombudsman00:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There was not concensus to delete. Violations of NPOV and NOR are not reasons per se for deletion, and the points are debatable. Many arguments are in favour of a rename and extensive re-work, which are arguments against "delete". While delete followed by a clean rewrite under a better name can work, it is far from ideal. It creates possible GDFL violations. In this case, the artcile history should be preserved. I believe that the original title could, with care, support a NPOV article although a rename to allegations of abuse of psychiatric patients is a reasonable suggestion. The term is notable and is a reasonably expected to be a search term. --SmokeyJoe01:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that most if not all the material in the article can or should already exist elsewhere on wikipedia. It is the bringing together of some disparate themes with a title which alludes that psychiatry is inherently abusive that is the problem. There is no need to recreate the article. An analogy is an article summarising all perceived wrongs by America and listing everything from McDonalds to Iran-contra etc. as a single article labelled Abuse by Americans etc.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, your fact may be true, but you mislead in asserting that your fact is the only fact. The pertinent facts, from my point of view are:
(1) ChrisO’s action did not reflect a consensus evident in the AfD; and
(2) I am persuaded that ChrisO’s action represented a “supervote”, reflecting his own opinion, and was not based on any overriding concern; and
(3) Reasonable arguments can be made that a good article can result from the overturning of the deletion decision and subsequent improvement of the article. --SmokeyJoe21:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) is misleading. To quote WP:DGFA: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and underlying policy (if any). ... A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions." (2) is pure nonsense. There's no such thing as a "supervote". My reasons for closing the AfD as a deletion are set clearly out above, based on policy, not "my own opinion". Ultimately (1) is a misunderstanding of how AfD works, and (2) is simple admin-bashing because you don't like the decision. -- ChrisO23:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO, I daresay that I do understand consensus. It’s complicated, but without a doubt that AfD was not consensus. The brevity and lack of analysis in your close was disrespectful. In contrast, a closure as “no consensus” would have been uncontroversial. As part of a “non consensus” closure, I would have warned of the need to attend to policy issues, noted the significant attention and improvement that was already occurring, and paid more attention to rename suggestions. Your right, I didn't like the decision. --SmokeyJoe02:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments here are inconsistent with your closing statement, and IMHO revisionist. For example you have made new arguments in the DRV that were not raised in the AfD related to WP:DICDEF. You also cited a "clear majority" for delete in the close, but now are citing policy that says it's OK to ignore the majority in favor of policy. This is also irrelevant because the lead section above from the version you deleted shows that an article can exist within policy, regardless of what policies past versions may have violated. When an admin has personal opinions about an article, then includes them in the closing decision, whether to override consensus, or as a "tie-breaker" to make consensus appear where there is none, that is a supervote, and it does happen. Your closing statement left the door to that conclusion open, and your repeated denials are only opening it further. Dhaluza23:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My remarks above were in response to SmokeyJoe's specific mention of the issue of consensus. For the record, there was a majority in favour of deletion and that majority had the better policy arguments. As WP:DGFA states clearly, "consensus is ... determined ... by looking at strength of argument and underlying policy". I judged that the arguments and policy citations were stronger for the advocates of deletion. Quoting again from WP:DGFA, "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Invalid arguments of the sort described in WP:ATA - especially WP:ILIKEIT, which we've seen a lot of in this deletion review - simply aren't useful in determining the outcome of an AfD. You seem to believe that consensus is about counting heads, but as WP:DGFA says very specifically, it is not. If you don't understand how AfD works that's your problem, not mine. -- ChrisO01:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Material can co-exist in multiple places in WP, with appropriate linkages. The title is used in scholarly works, so it is appropriate. If a better title also exists in scholarly works, then we can change it based on finding better published references, not by conducting OR to contrive a title intended to satisfy WP editor's personal preferences. WP is not censored. Dhaluza10:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dhaluza if this were a discussion on any ethnic group or nation it would be howled down as pejorative - and anyway to quote your own words, you're right it isn't censored and the info is elsewhere. having ethical and political issues is not OR - plenty written there. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And probably rightly so, if the only connection was an accidental one like ethnicity or nationality (you can't chose your parents or birthplace). But if it were about controversy surrounding cannibalism, for example, then cries that cannibals are a race, and criticism of them amounts to racism would be absurd. Dhaluza10:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn but rename. I originally commented on the deletion page that I wanted the article deleted. Later, though, a lot of the OR was cut down and cleaned up and I support the article as written above. The subject itself, though, has been researched in specific contexts but never as an overall "abuse using psychiatry". The article title is a critical issue. The term "psychiatric abuse" is OR itself. I do not support this term being used. I haven't seen a good number of reliable sources using this term. What is the scope of the title? Psychiatry as a specialty being abused by those with political power? Or is it using diagnostic/treatment methods utilized in psychiatry being used in an abusive way? This really needs to be determined. Then an appropriate article title should be formulated. Chupper17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseWP:COATRACK What a great term. Editors have commented that the article was improving[weasel words] and would have turned out all right.
The definition was tortured and hotly disputed with zero consensus. Never did I hear two editors agree that the intro was good. The body was a mess with parts being shunted in and out constantly. There was no rhyme or reason to the edits or the deletions. I couldn't really argue with much that was done because all though many thought they knew what the term meant no one could nail it. Above all there was no context to the individual pieces or how they fit in the whole. That is why no one editor edited consistently for five days. They may have thought they new what they were doing before they went in but then they lost steam. It was an utterly frustrating experience that drained us all. In the end there was was a lull for a day and that was telling. If there was direction to that article the edits would have intensified. I guess you could say in the end the article did improve but the bar was so low that there was no where but up to go. What a complete mess that still was.--scuro03:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Endorse - A Screem 4 has been batted around since at least 2000. Arquettes interest three days ago does not mean that Screem 4 will be made. There's enough info on the topic to include in Wikipedia, but not in its own separate article, particularly after so many admins deleted the article. Before this article can be recreated, you should create a draft article and present it to WP:DRV for review. Here's some info: Houston Chronicle. (September 28, 2000) "Scream" shoots scare up laughs. (writing, ""Scream 4 ?" Don't hold your breath. Director Wes Craven has no interest. "Well, if they give me $10 million . . . ," he said."). UPI News (December 31, 2003) No "Scream 4" for Neve.Resurrecting and Updating the Teen Slasher: The Case of Scream, Arquettes, Weinsteins eyeing 'Scream 4' -- Jreferee t/c00:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Denial of Soviet occupation – deletion narrowly endorsed. There is a clear consensus that the Russian government's position is worth covering and the controversy thereover is also worth covering, but there is likewise a decision that this was not the way to cover it. I reiterate ChrisO's AFD closing recommendation to first expand Occupation of Baltic states#Official position of the Russian government in a WP:NPOV and WP:NOR compliant fashion, then if there is a consensus of editors on the talk page of that article that the section needs to be spun out it should be spun out with a summary sub-section remaining behind. – GRBerry04:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Additional closer's comment: No weight was given to the opinion of one very new user who also introduced no new arguments or evidence, per long standing DRV precedent. Greater weight was given to the opinion of outsiders to the general disputes over Eastern European coverage. However, both the outsiders and insiders broke very evenly. Finally, the vote counting argument is the least significant of all arguments, and solely appeared amoung those opining for an overturn. GRBerry04:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Breach of Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 [5], while "Soviet liberation" only gets 107 hits in Goole scholar [6]Martintg01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; I see a clear concensus, and the closing admin has clearly set out the reasoning used to reach the decision, and it was sound and proper. — Coren(talk)02:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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(talk)04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussionMartintg04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 yu15:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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-трёп-06:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. JdeJ10:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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." -- ChrisO08:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Added). I'd like to remind editors that (as WP:DRV#Purpose says) "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." Many of the comments below have essentially been arguments that "this is a significant topic, therefore it should have an article." That may or may not be true (I have no view either way), but it's not the issue at hand. The issue is whether this particular article met Wikipedia's policies; as WP:DGFA says, "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." Many of the arguments for overturning that have been advanced in this DRV are essentially political ones or are just silly (what is "Wikipedia denialism, an all too common phenomenon" supposed to mean?). I stand 100% behind my closure, and I believe it was fully compliant with policy and well within admin discretion. -- ChrisO01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! JdeJ10:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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". JdeJ10:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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, Wikipedia's policies on articles discussing POVs are clear. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ!12:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as the nominator. As a further comment, we have 1480 references in scholarly literature [7] and 773 book references [8], 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 [9], we have a number of reputable media outels reporting Moscow's denial [10], [11], [12], [13], the US Congress passes a resolution asking that Russia stop denying occupation [14], the US Senate passes a resolution asking Russia to stop denying occupation [15] and George Bush supporting the Baltic view of occupation [16] (all this at a time when USA needed Russian support for Iraq), an EU resolution recognising Russia's denial of occupation [17]. 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."[18] and here discussing Russia's motivations for denial [19]. All these references are included in the article, so could someone explain in what way this is WP:SYNT or WP:OR. Martintg16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Tymek04:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Renata17:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 states. So far WP:POINT remains valid. Hence keep deleted. --Irpen19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion POV fork. OR, by way of synthesising, yes. Interesting: on the AfD people who argued that the term "Soviet occupation" was POV, were asked to provide sources for that statement: so they were actually been asked to source the article as it was titled (a clear sign that this article is really written to point out tiffs between contributors, and not as an articel that belongs in an encyclopedia). I have no problem with "Soviet rule" or even "Allegations of ...", but the problem (as User:Dahn pointed out during the AfD) is that what we have here is mostly meant to injure other contributors' feelings, and there is very little to put in an actual article - even "merge" seems silly.--Pan Gerwazy10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The whole thing is built on a novel synthesis. There are many things in the article which could be added to other articles on the history of the Baltic states, but in no sense could this be merged. That leaves a straight choice between keeping and deleting, and there can be no thought of keeping this original research. I acknowledge the nominator's hard work to improve the article, but this did not, and apparently can not, address the OR problems. Angus McLellan(Talk)16:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe it is built upon a novel synthesis, can you atleast articulate what you believe the synthesis is that this article is presenting? As someone else already pointed out above, Russia's denial of Soviet occupation has been widely discussed in the European press and I have presented several scholarly sources that discuss this denial, as well as an official Russian government press release and the responses of the US executive branch and both houses of the legislature. Martintg17:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While Russia does disagrees with the usage of the term "occupation", your coverage of the topic is POV OR. The problem was not with the topic but with the article. Please compare with "Anschluss" article. Very similar topics, but coverage of Baltic events is a cry of an insulted chils in comparison. `'Míkka23:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No violation in closure process, the rest is irrelevant. Side comment: The very fact that nothing has been done in the redirected page since deletion of the page in question speaks in favor of the opinion that the goal of the authors is to make a political splash, rather than to contribute information. `'Míkka23:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. Consensus was that the article presented the topic as a depiction of the Russian government's position when, in fact, that was not supported by the reliable source material. Consensus that the article was a POV fork support by the discussion. It seems possible to develop an article on the topic so long as the article does not present third party opinions as being those of the Russian government. Endorse with no prejudice in creating an article on the topic that meets Wikipedia article standards. -- Jreferee t/c00:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - there is much of interest/value in this article and it is vital it finds a home elsewhere. But it doesn't belong under this title. PRtalk07:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore There was no consensus for deletion. The article is no more intrinsically a POV fork than Holocaust denial. Obviously, it will need careful editing, but so do all political articles.DGG (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore no consensus per Martintg, Konieczny & DGG. Deletion of this encyclopedic topic is itself an unfortunate example of Wikipedia denialism, an all too common phenomenon. Dhaluza10:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
