Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet again to demonstrate notability you need coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't matter how many unreliable sources you can point to, they are not evidence of notability. Finding something which wasn't covered in the original debate doesn't mean the debate should be re-opened, since you also have to show there is at least a reasonable chance the debate could have gone the other way had that information been present. I see no evidence of that here, had those links been presented in the AfD discussion you would have got similar comments to mine. I can see that recreation of the page was deleted with a hoax, and given the article content I can see why the deleting admin thought it was one, but the page undoubtedly qualified for deletion under G4 as a recreation of the AfDed page. Hut 8.5 20:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough secondary sources for this to show notability. They are easy to find unless you refuse to look. Here, here and here. And these are just the ones that specifically mention the term ASMR, which was only coined recently. The whisper community is older and broader. You seem to have decided long ago that this was not notable, so much so that you even refused to look at evidence provided. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at those sources, they don't demonstrate notability. [1] and [2] are opinion pieces, these are not considered reliable for anything other than the opinion of the author. The first of these links was actually present in the article during the deletion discussion and wasn't considered evidence of notability by the participants. [3] is a high school newspaper, this certainly is not a reliable source. Hut 8.5 21:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do establish notability by referencing a community of thousands or more. You are using a standard which seems to be changing to suit you, and which you are not defining. According to Wikipedia:GNG the standards required are 1) "Significant coverage" - specifically enough so that original research is not required. No original research is required, so that standard is met. 2) "Reliable" - specifically to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. If you cannot use the sources provided to verify notability, it is your own fault. 3) "Sources" - specifically secondary sources. In this case, all sources provided have been secondary, except any links to specific ASMR videos. 4) "Independent of the subject" - no allegation has been made that any of the secondary sources are affiliated with the creators of the videos. 5) "Presumed" - specifically that there are ways to presume notability without the need for specific sources. A quick Youtube or Google search for the term will pull up more results than you can possibly examine yourself, therefore the presumption that there is notability must apply. If you wish to challenge the notability of this article with reference to specific policy, please do so. But do not continue to defend your position for the sake of it as this is not conducive to a constructive debate. Also bear in mind that if you do cite a further piece of minutia, it may not be in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia to enforce it. There is no doubt that ASMR exists as a genre, a community, and as a phenomenon; it does nobody any good to challenge that fact or censor it. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I appreciate that you're a new editor and haven't encountered our notability standards before, but you've got completely the wrong end of the stick. What you've quoted is not the definition of the term "significant coverage", it's the reason why we require significant coverage. Similarly what you've quoted is not the definition of "reliable source". This term is defined by the guideline, and it specifically excludes the kind of sources you've provided. It is possible to show notability through ways other than the GNG, but this is limited to subject-specific notability guidelines which do not apply to this topic. These are not "minutae", they are important principles which have widespread community support and which are the main reasons why your page was deleted. Notability is not defined by Google hits, nor by the existence of a community of thousands of people - it's established by significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. I have no doubt that this thing exists as a genre and a community, but that doesn't mean anything as far as notability is concerned. Hut 8.5 23:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Wikipedia:NEWSBLOG excludes the opinion piece that I submitted. And I don't think anything in Wikipedia:NEWSORG excludes the news sources I submitted - it says "News reporting from less well established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." But we're not debating the fact that this exists, we're debating its notability. These, [1], [2] are new sources. Steven Novella, assistant professor and Director of General Neurology at Yale University School of Medicine, posted this to his blog which normally would not be notable. But the Wikipedia:BLOGS guidelines specifically allow "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field". I doubt anyone involved in this deletion process is qualified to exclude the opinion of a director at Yale University School of Medicine. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces are rarely reliable for anything other than the opinion of the author, including statements of fact (WP:NEWSORG). For instance if you were writing an article about a film you could cite an opinion piece as a source for the author's opinion about it, provided the statement was properly attributed. This article isn't like that, and these sources can't be used to support statements about ASMR. Note that the guideline I linked to goes on to particularly discourage the use of such sources for claims about scientific topics. [4] and [5] are unreliable blogs, the latter doesn't even constitue significant coverage. [6] is much better, but there are still two problems with it. Firstly you're not proposing just to cite it as a source, you're trying to use it to establish notability and to base the entire article on it. Using a self-published source for either of these things is deeply problematic. As WP:SPS says, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so". Secondly it doesn't meet the more stringent standard of WP:MEDRS, which discourages the use of both primary sources and sources that haven't been peer-reviewed. I agree that ASMR's notability rather then existence is the issue, and I can't see why you brought its existence up. Hut 8.5 09:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[7] is not an "unreliable blog" it is an edited magazine run by a limited liability company, as per the ABOUT and TERMS OF USE pages. If you aren't going to examine the citations provided, please don't report back here that they are unreliable; this distorts the deletion review process. These are exactly the kind of sources you would expect to report on a new genre like this. [8] is not the basis for the entire article, it is an interesting side-line. If a director of neurology at Yale University School of Medicine spoke about the effects of dubstep drops on the brain, it would be worthy of inclusion in the article for dubstep, and it would certainly indicate the notability of dubstep, but it would not be the basis of the article for dubstep - it also would not suddenly require the dubstep article to meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that Thought Catalog is reliable, it is generally referred to as a blog [9][10][11], it accepts user-submitted content (which is almost never reliable), and being owned by a limited company doesn't make you reliable. You're neglecting the fact that if we were to recreate this article the neuroscience blog is the only remotely reliable source we have, so most of the article would have to be based on its contents, as articles have to be based on reliable sources. If a neuroscientist were to write about the effects of dubstep on the brain on their blog that fact by itself probably wouldn't merit a mention in the article dubstep. In any case what you're proposing to do is closer to writing an entire article called Effects of dubstep on the brain largely based around that blog post. Wikipedia is not here to promote new or emerging concepts, we document things that are already known. Hut 8.5 22:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not guess what article I would write, because you could not know what I would write, and then I have to correct you. I am proposing to write an article called ASMR. The article will be a resource to learn about ASMR. It will be about a collection of videos which produce a certain sensation that is popularly described as "head tingles". And that there is a community that produces thousands of videos to induce these tingles. It will include citations that speak directly to that, but it will also contain references from such diverse sources as music blogs and neuroscientists who find the idea worth talking about in relation to their own fields. There will be no reference to any sort of sickness or medicine, so there will be no reason for anyone to ask for papers from medical journals. Hut 8.5, I do not have time to dedicate to argue against you. Obviously, you take pride in deleting articles based on your user page, but I think anyone who reads this discussion will realise that you have not been acting in the best interests of wikipedia's users. I hope others who see this page note the wide variety of sources, the obvious notability of this community, and most importantly, the knowledge that can be passed on by being collected in one simple article. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "guessing" what kind of article you would write. I'm stating what kind of article you could write without falling foul of one or more policies or guidelines. Notability requires coverage in reliable sources for a reason

you aren't allowed to cite unreliable blogs, opinion pieces or high school newspapers in the vast majority of circumstances, and certainly not in an article about a scientific subject. The only thing you've provided that is even remotely close to qualifying is the neuroscience blog, so the article would have to be primarily based on that (and, as I've explained already, there are other problems with it). I think we can safely say it's unlikely there are better sources out there, since otherwise you would have brought them up. The topic is not "obviously notable", at least not by the standard Wikipedia actually uses, and the only reason the AfD got anything like as many comments as it did is that there was an external campaign to save the article. Oh, and the fact I have a few editing statistics on my userpage doesn't mean I "take pride in deleting articles". Hut 8.5 22:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I come back to check up on this, and I'm confronted with this bolded paragraph of lies that I've already dealt with? And this after I said I don't have time to dedicate to arguing with you - could you be more inconsiderate? The article is about ASMR, not a "scientific subject" (a term you don't define). The sources are not unreliable, I've already said why. Nobody is making up ASMR. There is only one high school newspaper, it is one of dozens of possible citations. The article would not be primarily based on the neuroscience blog, I've already said that and shouldn't have to say it twice. Treating others like shit because they use an IP instead of a username and because they aren't part of your boys-club is immature. The references provided by new editors are as worthy as ones provided by old ones - the page on meatpuppets specifically says not to use that as a derogatory term, yet you did anyway to refer to people who want share knowledge. The fact that you often cite policies, but never quote them, and then accuse others of wikilawyering shows you are acting in bad faith. I presume this is purely because you want to defend your original knee-jerk reaction. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I found this interesting article, which is very much related to ASMR, yet even less detailed.Mylon (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Hut 8.5. No evidence that deletion procedure wasn't followed, and frankly when a whole bunch of sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts show up from nowhere to "vote" like that, 99.9% of the time that's a strong indication that the article is destined for the bin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Reasonable close. Allow WP:Userfication on request by any registered user with a reasonable editing history. See Wikipedia:Why create an account?. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's possible that this review is the result of this reddit post. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This review was suggested by the deleting admin. 62.254.76.153 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. Notable much like a genre of music. There's a large collection of videos dedicated to this topic and even commercially sold devices. Definitely worthy of an article. Mylon (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Edited my vote to make it more clear. Mylon (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The initial "does not meet WP:GNG" argument by the nominator never was rebutted and the closer determine that rough consensus had been reached based on the initial WP:GNG argument. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7 May 2012

Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response