Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 May 18

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

From the discussion with the closing administrator:

From my reading of Wikipedia policy, I don't see how "in terms of headcount" establishes consensus (From WP:Consensus: "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)"; from WP:WMD#Deletion discussions: "they are not `votes'. The weight of an argument is more important than the number of people making the argument"; and from WP:AFTERDELETE: "Remember that deletion discussions are not votes, and opinions are weighed according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.").
In the AfD discussion what argument grounded in Wikipedia policy did you see for deletion?

Editors supporting deletion cited several, including OR/SYNTH and NPOV. I'm not saying that they're right, necessarily, but these are arguments based on policy. Sandstein 09:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But what about "quality of arguments"? The editors who wanted deletion, including the original poster, claimed that the mere combining of disparate subtopics into a single article constituted OR and SYNTH. I don't see that anywhere in WP:OR or WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH (please see WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition). As I said, there are many articles in Wikipedia that combine disparate subtopics, such as Alternative medicine and Criticism of science.NightHeron (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what manner (other than headcount) did you conclude that there was a consensus for deletion? Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In situations as here, where there's no side that has the clearly stronger arguments (both sides made defensible arguments), a clear headcount is usually determinative for consensus. Sandstein 09:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELAFD says pointblank "These processes are not decided through a head count" and also in WP:DEL "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it."

The trouble with a headcount in such a situation is that it makes it possible for a group of like-minded editors to delete an article that they find offensive or threatening to a strong viewpoint of theirs. I have tremendous respect for the other editors in the AfD discussion, several of whom have devoted a lot of work to WikiProject Medicine. However, it was clear from the discussion that some of them felt that the very idea of a "Criticisms of medicine" article was improper because it would play into the hands of CAM ("Complementary and Alternative Medicine," i.e., non-science-based treatments). Even if this were true (which I and some other editors argued that it wasn't), according to WP:Censor material should not be removed from Wikipedia because some (in this case possibly a majority of participating editors) thought it would be detrimental to a cause they believe in. (In this case it is a cause that I strongly support, namely, combating fraud and pseudoscience.)

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

Overturn there was no consensus, about what the article should say, or what it did say, or whether it was harmful to WP. Trying to decide in such a situation by headcount is contrary to policy. (We do resolve some matters by actually voting, but to do that fairly requires much wider discussion than practical at an AfD.) It is often forgotten that "consensus" does not mean agreement, but finding a solution that everyone or almost everyone can live with. An indecisive AfD should result in a compromise. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm just being dumb, but is the result you are proposing with overturn a "compromise"? It appears to merely be awarding the win to the minority view in the discussion, certainly not what I understand by the word compromise. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn so that the contents remain accessible to editors. If this article and AFD were of the usual variety I would have thought just about any close would be within discretion, based on the !votes and their individual justifications. However, the present situation, that the article's content will be only visible to administrators, so clearly goes against the tone of the discussion that I think it is necessary to probe more deeply.

The nomination suggests the article should be removed but some of its contents may be usable elsewhere. This implies some sort of potential for continued access (and attribution?). Roxy concurs while expressing this as "delete". Natureium's and Kirbanzo's "deletes" are explicit that some material is reusable. Kirbanzo agrees to a "redirect" to achieve this. Semmendinger seems to agree and suggests the contents are moved to a suitable place or retained in a history. Biogeographist and WhatamIdoing suggest a "redirect" to enable splitting some material elsewhere.

Discospinster and NightHeron opine "keep" (and my apologies for so crassly oversimplifying your opinions).

DGG voices a clear "delete" but later gives a nuanced "keep". @DGG: clarification? Legacypac's "delete" expresses a view on the AFD discussion but not on the article.

TenOfAllTrades concedes the possibility that some minor information might be usable elsewhere but is rather firmly of the view that the article and contents should be removed. Andrew D deplores the polemic nature of the subject, thinks criticisms should be embedded elsewhere and, I think, suggests this article has nothing worth salvaging.

I suggest "no consensus" or "redirect" would be a reasonable conclusion based on the discussion (and, frankly, either is more desirable than delete). Move to draft is maybe too creative for DRV to stomach. Thincat (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind to keep upon re-examination fo the article and the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to "No consensus" and restore the article, as per NightHeron and DGG above. Do not relist, but it can be relisted later if any editor so desires, as with any no consensus result. Several of the editors who commented proposed splitting the article, which is not properly a "delete" result, because attribution would require its retention in that case. Specifically, SEMMENDINGER, Kirbanzo, and Biogeographist favored this approach. The argument that Any title starting "Criticism of..." should be deleted as contrary to our core policy of WP:NPOV. by Andrew D. clearly does not have site-wide consensus and should have been discounted. LegacyPac's view was a meta comment on the discussion, providing no policy-based reasons for deletion, and should have been discounted. The assertions of SYNTH and of need-for MEDRS-based sourcing were convincingly refuted and should have been discounted. The argument for BURDEN and PROVEIT was misapplied. The deletion policy is clear that there must be an active, policy-based consensus for deletion, and that in the absence of such a consensus, an article is not deleted, which is why a no consensus close does not lead to deletion. Headcount should not be applied to determine consensus to delete at all. Back when it was, in the days of VfD, the standard was that at least 2/3rds of those commenting must favor deletion to form a consensus to delete. by my count, 14 editors commented on point, and 7 of those were clear delete views (even counting those I said above should be discounted). Even by headcount, this is not a consensus to delete. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not overturn. Sandstein and I don't get along too well. He/she can seem stern. However, his/her judgment is ok. Are there many reliable sources, such as a book entitled "Criticism of Medicine"? I think not. If this is allowed, then anyone could start articles called "Criticism of Trump", "Criticism of Obama", "Criticism of the University of Virignia", "Criticism of United Airlines (which would be a longer article than the United Airlines article), "Criticism of Dermatology about why you hate your skin doctor. Cowding Soup (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18 May 2018

Criticisms of medicine