Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 April 9
2007 April 11 >

10 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MySpace Events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I do not think this article should have been deleted since it had more than enough sources, facts, good grammar, and tone and was very informative. It was deleted for allegedly being a copy and paste of MySpace Secret Shows when in reality it was a whole 'nother article with another author and more (than enough) information. I do not think this article should have been deleted since it had more than enough sources, facts, good grammar, and tone and was very informative. It was deleted for allegedly being a copy and paste of MySpace Secret Shows when in reality it was a whole 'nother article with another author and more (than enough) information. Martini833 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per the discussion on the previous day's log, the "List of MySpace Shows" was not the right place to discuss this, even though it was speedied as a repost of a previously-deleted MySpace Secret Shows. With all of this said, the cached version shows a page that needs incline sourcing, but otherwise meets out standards for inclusion. With no prejudice toward the deletion of the old versions, overturn and allow this one to stand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, List of MySpace Shows was a speedied as a G4 it was a repost of the list at MySpace Secret Shows. This article was a more expansive explanation of the concept than existed at MySpace Secret Shows and is essentially a completely separate article.--Isotope23 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since you're an admin and i think you believe MySpace Events is a completely different valid article then can you bring it back?Martini833 20:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the version available seems OK, if it had sources for the individual events--just as Jeff says.DGG 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit history restored behind tag, no opinion yet. --Coredesat 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; a lot of work was put into improving the article. As mentioned above, the AfD discussion seemed to have turned into a debate over other pages and the original author's actions, not the merits of the article itself. After the improvements made, and pending those in progress, I see no reason for deletion. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. (to above comment by vendetta) Martini833 01:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, no offense to those who worked on it, but the article is still quite promotional in nature, and is rather abysmal (and has never been anything but). If there is to be an article on this subject, this is not it, and the only way to fix it is to start entirely from scratch. I imagine quite a few admins would still see this as being borderline G11. --Coredesat 01:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense to CoreDesat but why don't you try and write it from scracth cus it was written from scratch three times there so pleasing you is there... Martini833 02:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • i don't know if I'd agree with any admin trying to force a G11 on this. there's really noting self-promotional in nature about it, and certainly not enough to warrant a G11 with that in mind. The article is in tough shape, but I've seen much, much worse, and it doesn't need that much help - a removal of some of the dodgy fair use images and a little cleanup on the how, and it's more than a useful start. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't really help but comment on this; it is extremely difficult to write content about a promotional event without it sounding promotional. I believe that with the changes made, it is simply describing the promotional events (the subject matter) rather than promoting them. That's the main reason why I had asked for specifics on what to do, as a writer and editor, during the original AfD discussion; if anyone knows exactly how to accomplish this, they really should be instructing others rather than simply voting for deletion. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 03:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this article goes back up i will add an extra event called The List [www.myspace.com/thelist] and others if any. Also i'll put them in a more convinient order. You'll see what I mean...Martini833 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion while I appreciate the effort made to create the article, it still boils down to unencyclopedic promotional material. I agree with Coredesat that it is quite abysmal. If in the end we are going to have an article in the encyclopedia on this subject, then the current article is the wrong road to take to get there. I see it as a borderline G11. Jerry 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i can see the page is much much better than before and does not sound like an ad (look at the first attempt and you will see what they meant with an advertisement tone) but for now it looks great especially after vendetta fixed it. And if its soooooooooo bad as you say FIX IT! 65.11.27.42 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and keep You probably know this was my opinion all along but i never officially voted so here it is keep. Martini833 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I think this needs to be taken less as a debate about recreation of material and more as a debate about the quality of the material in the first place. Whether or not it is speedy-able is irrelevant here. The bottom line is that the article was an advertisement for MySpace (even if that was not the editors' intention). Axem Titanium 14:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion but i dont think so at all. Why doesnt someone step up to write it less as an advertisement. Deleting it would be a waste of an article (and the writers time). Everyone who says its an ad and doesnt step up to try and rewrite it is a hypocrite. Martini833 15:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy to anyone willing to rewrite the thing; otherwise, endorse deletion. The subject of this article is probably notable, given the extensive sourcing. Nevertheless, the content deleted is promotional, especially the scheduling information. I can't bring myself to overturning an AfD for this stuff, because the AfD's conclusion was justified in policy. Still, I do see a slimmer of merit in the content -- as a well-documented example of modern marketing. I won't "SOFIXIT" myself, because I know nothing about MySpace, and I'm not inclined to learn just to save this thing. However, if anyone else is willing to, I think there are possibilities here. Xoloz 15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fictional portrayals of psychopaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn and delete - leaving aside the dueling psychobabble over the validity within the psychiatric community over the utility of the word "psychopath," the point still stands that the article suffers from fatal WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems. The most ardent defenders of keeping the article resorted by and large to arguments like "At least in films, there's usually pretty litle doubt if someone is a psychopath" and "Could anyone deny that most of the characters listed in the article are psychopaths?" and "It is utterly beyond reasonable doubt, in many cases, whether a film character is a psychopath in accordance with the usual dictionary definition of the word." A list article whose inclusion standard is premised on there being little or no doubt in the mind of an editor that a subject should be on the list in the absence of any source is the essence of a WP:NPOV violation and arguments from that standpoint should be discounted, especially in the face of at least one of the people making it expressing his belief that a character that in one editor's opinion belongs should be deleted. The essay portions of the article are completely lacking in sources and appear to be a textbook case of original research. The arguments offered in favor the article do not address the policy violations. The article should be deleted. Otto4711 14:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the OR issue is that there are no reliable sources for this data, since the judgement of what constitutes a fictional psychopath is being made in just about every case by the editors of the article themselves. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While re-reviewing the comments, it seems that those who endorsed keeping the article seemed to address the comments on the title (more specifically, the word psychopath) and not, as the user who initiated this deletion review stated, the concerns with NPOV and OR. Admittedly, the article is very poorly sourced and looks very much like OR. I was probably wrong in deciding to close this article as a "keep," but instead probably closed this as a "no consensus" discussion. Perhaps the solution is WP:SOFIXIT, but perhaps the article should be allowed to start anew: delete the article, and start from scratch. I really don't know which way we should approach this. Hopefully I made some semblance of sense, and if I didn't, you can always ask me to re-submit another comment. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 19:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete this uncited mess, but don't salt. There could be a decent list of fictional psychopaths, but it would have to have sources for each one - either the character would have to be referred to as a psychopath within the work of fiction, or some reliable source like the author or the series bible (for TV shows) would have to say that. The current article is pure original research. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOFIXIT by either 1. Validate which characters are psychopaths by getting each one them to fill out the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Non-compliance means expulsion from the article, ergo a basis for deleting the article. 2. Ask the ficition author/script writer of each psychopathic character to fill out the questionnaire on the character's behalf thereby at least giving a humorous reality to this ficition. If the character has no friend in his/her creator or the creator has crossed over, then another basis for trimming/deleting has arrived. 3. Ask Robert Hare to pass a NPOV eye over the list and delete those who in his opinion fail to meet the minimum criteria of psychopathy. 4. Rename the article as 'Fictitional portrayals of ficitious personality disordered characters uncritically diagnosed in absentia as psychopaths' or FPDCUDIAAP for short and replace each ocurrence of the word psychopath, sociopath, narcissism, anti-social personality disorder etc with FPDCUDIAAP. This is my vote as it will at least keep a brilliant list of crazy films together in an original and enkuklios paideia form, which offers readers an opportunity of a well-rounded education. Fix with the addition of Critical thinking --Ziji 11:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure This is within reasonable administrative discretion. I suspect that much of the list that is contained within the article needs to be whacked as original research, but the article itself is legitimate, as was shown by the AFD discussion. If part, and only part, of an article violates WP:NOR, the correct solution is to whack that part, not the entire article. GRBerry 16:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I have begun to FIXIT. It will take some time and care to deal with issues that violate WP:NOR without whacking the article since it contains original ideas, opinions and has signficant merit. It's a big job, please lend a hand--Ziji 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Keep arguments support the validity of this article. Any OR/POV issues can be fixed and are being fixed as indicated above. –Pomte 21:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Darvon cocktail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I cannot find or obtain enough information to know why this was deleted and protected. I and another user have attempted to contact Slim Virgin (talk · contribs) about the reason for the deletion/protection. Dextropropoxyphene links to Darvon cocktail, so it's not as if there is no relevant extant discussion. The deletion log lists speedy deletions and says "dangerous" (unless I'm mistaken, the Wiki policy on censorship does not allow for that as a valid reason for deletion), but I don't know if that's the full story. I am filing this review not in an attempt, necessarily, to get the page restored, but to find out the full story. Greener grasses (talk · contribs) is the interested party on behalf of whom I am filing this request. MalcolmGin 13:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment/inquiry/reminder: This review is not so I can get the article restored, but rather to try to discover what process/policy got it deleted/protected. I don't particularly care one way or ther other whether the article is restored (though Greener grasses (talk · contribs) might). I just want to find out why the article was deleted and protected. --MalcolmGin 00:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • And the answer is: becvause it was an unsourced article on a term for which there are fewer than 120 unique Google hits, most of which appear to be blogs, RX spam or mirrors; it was reposted numerous times, always without a single source for anything at all, including the name. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since citation is one of my specialties, I'll do what I can to figure out whether it's a workable article from that perspective. If Greener grasses (talk · contribs) wants to take up the torch, I'll suggest it to em. What's the process for getting a workable article reviewed and reinstated from User space? Another Deletion review? --MalcolmGin 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but we have different versions of what may be a worthwhile article. In my view, something for which there are under 120 unique ghits, with Wikipedia as the leading source for both the information and the title, is not likely to be a worthwhile article. There being zero hits in the usual medical sources I use, that sounds to me like the very opposite of a worthwhile article. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that any of this is anything more than conjecture at this point, as none of these facts changes what was an improper deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 2,160 unique hits on Google for "darvon cocktail", but only 71 for that phrase in English. It does seem like a lot of it is spam linking, it's true. On doing a preliminary survey via Google alone, I admit the results are pretty shoddy. However, I think there's more than enough citations to work with in the medical literature (search Pubmed for "darvon risk" (1341 hits) or "darvon suicide" (86 hits)) to make a good, well-cited article that could be published and perhaps protected afterwards. I have a trip to a medical library scheduled to do research on Klinefelter's syndrome citations, so I'll fold this research on "darvon" into it and see what I can get. I think in cases like these it's vital to be well-read and well-informed. Using abstracts only to provide citations would seem to me to be inadequate. --MalcolmGin 18:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. All this could be at Darvon, no problem. What we have here, however, is a mix of uncited content and an OR title. Wrong content plus wrong title = bitbucket. A redirect would be no biggie if you can cite the suicide element properly (rather than the recipe that was at this article). Guy (Help!) 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that some of the articles I glossed on PubMed used the phrase "darvon cocktail", but am not completely sure. I'll see if I can find a citation for your review. --MalcolmGin 00:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still can't find the phrase used in PubMed, but I'm only going on Abstracts for the most part, and there's still a search to be done on the phrase in the popular/periodical press, which generally is not indexed on Google nor on PubMed, and where I think there is probably the most fertile ground for moving the title of the article itself out of WP:OR-land. --MalcolmGin 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does one create a cited, workable version of an article that is deleted and protected? This is not a wise-ass question, but one meant to try to divine proper procedure. Do we use a sub-article article name, or an article name with a number attached, or do we e-mail it to you or some other admin/arbitration board? I'm happy to help users follow process, but only if there is documented process on how to do it properly. --MalcolmGin 14:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list, I don't see "dangerous information" listed anywhere in the Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion. I also don't see "how-to guide" there (though it is in WP:NOT). Unless this is an office action, the article deserves its fair shot at AfD. With five days, maybe someone will be motivated to do the necessary clean up and turn this into something appropriately encyclopedic. And if not, no big deal, we can delete it then. I don't think we need officious admins arbitrarily deciding what is "safe " for us to see. Xtifr tälk 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Guy without prejudice against an article that is verified and otherwise meets policy. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn so it can be improved. Amounts aren't listed, and that's the key safety factor. The general practice in discussing these things seems to be avoid stating exactly what the lethal dose range is, though it generally can be found in the medical literature, since professionals do need to know. Given references to the use of the mixture, I think the article could stand; For an article giving lethal ranges, it would be an interesting discussion.DGG 23:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The process here isn't "Make a bunch of stuff up and then have other editors try to come up with a post-facto way to justify its existence." SlimVirgin nuked an article that was both (a) original research (b) a how-to on how to do something that (c) could probably hurt the encyclopedia if anyone took our advice. I'm glad to see it gone. I hope it doesn't come back. I think any time spent kneading our hands over this article's fate is wasted time. Nandesuka 23:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. Many topics are dangerous. - I don't see any proof that just because there's an article about it in this project means it is more likely that people will commit suicide (the Methamphetamine article can be called dangerous since it describes its compounds). But it is an encyclopedic topic and I will speculate that it can even be a suicide-preventative tool for psychologists, pharmacists, counselors, etc. Even if editors disagree, by all means it should be talked about and not speedy deleted. --Oakshade 23:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no valid reason to speedy delete the article. If you want, list it at WP:AfD. There's enough opposition to this speedy deletion; process is important here. WODUP 04:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I speedied this because it was unsourced and dangerous (and would arguably be worse if sourced). Someone had already tried to add the precise amounts to it, so it was a page that was likely only to get worse. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dangerous" and "inappropriate," the reasons you mention on your talk page, are not valid reasons for deletion. I think I am going to attempt to make another version of it on a subpage of my user page, hopefully with a bit of help. I'm just disturbed at this issue, as it is the only time I've seen censorship on Wikipedia in my time here. Also, can anyone tell me where this all goes from here? Thanks so much; I've learned quite a bit in the past few days. Greener grasses 08:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the last time, it was not deleted because it was dangerous. It was deleted because it was unsourced, and it being dangerous merely makes it more necessary that we ignore the wikilawyers who think that "The world is flat" should be tagged {{citation needed}}. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's ridiculous to use the word 'improper' to describe the removal of unsourced content which in no way assists the creation of a policy-compliant article. On Wikipedia, process follows practice, not the other way around. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Providing this type of information constitutes an indirect form of assisted suicide, which is illegal in more direct forms in Florida, where the WP servers are located. I am not saying that promoting or helping an illegal act is automatically illegal in itself, but I would suggest that before we do so, we make sure that the entry clearly meets all our own notability and sourcing criteria, which it did not. Crum375 12:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That should be up to the Wikimedia Foundation lawyers then, shouldn't it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. What I am saying is that we as WP already have some recent black eyes in the public's perception, so in this case where we could be stepping on some legislative toes in Florida, we should at a minimum be absolutely sure we meet our own inclusion and sourcing standards, which we don't IMO. Crum375 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then we should ask the Foundation. "Office action' is a perfectly valid speedy-deletion criterion. But to preemptively delete this on the off-chance that it might cause legal problems, without consulting any lawyers, and using a deletion summary that blatantly violates Wikipedia policy, and almost seems carefully crafted to cause the maximum offense to those who take our no-censorship policy seriously—that is not acceptable! Xtifr tälk 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are missing my point. I am not focusing on a specific legal issue - I am focusing on our perception by the public, which has recently taken a beating. All I am saying is that in sensitive cases such as this one, where a news reporter may decide to use it to further denigrate WP as contributing to teen suicides or violating anti-euthanasia laws, we should at the very least be absolutely sure that such problem articles meet our own inclusion and sourcing criteria, which this one did not. Nothing to do with Office or Legal. Crum375 22:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well...that's certainly a unique argument, I'll give it that. I'm a little dubious about the proposition that we should allow our content or processes to be swayed by fear of what the popular press might say. But even if I accept that, there's another possibility that you're overlooking. What if the press picks up on the fact that some admins are blatantly censoring Wikipedia in violation of it's own established rules and procedures. What if they try to spin that into a story about the massive hypocrisy within the Wikipedia community? I suspect that a properly motivated reporter on a slow news day could turn that into a real hit piece. The fact is, if the press wants to write a negative article about Wikipedia, they'll be able to do so no matter what we do, pretty much. So to me, the proper thing to do is be honest, consistent, and true to ourselves. It may make people mad, but at least we'll be able to hold our heads high. And I do not feel that this deletion was honest, consistent or true to our principles. Xtifr tälk 11:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think we agree that we should stick to our basic principles, which means that if an article has no visible sources or notability, it should not exist. The issue here is that if the article can be viewed as 'dangerous', it makes it even more important to dot the i's and cross the t's. I can't see any media outlet being excited about WP sticking to its rules extra carefully about a dangerous subject. Crum375 12:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • You and Guy and others who are arguing for deletion are arguing (quite well) the next step in the process. First we overturn this improperly deleted article, list it, give editors 5? days to cite the article properly, then when/if the article is found properly lacking, we put it up for AfD. Circumventing the proper policy/procedure does none of us any good, helps, in fact, make Wikipedia look like it is run by Cabals of Administrators who think they know better than established, official policy. --MalcolmGin 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Proper procedure was not followed. If I understand the aim of this process (i.e. Deletion review), the aim is to determine whether proper procedure was followed, not to determine whether the content is dangerous or offensive. If the article is listed and remains unsourced (especially the title itself), then definitely take the article to AfD or delete it per other documented, defensible process. If we at Wikipedia don't have process we can rely on, then we won't make progress. If admins take the policy into their own hands without following process, if non-admin editors cannot rely on proper process, then we'll become lawless. Policy/procedure should not allow exceptions, except via changing policy/procedure. Policy and procedure keeps us all honest. I'm willing to personally go after admins for not following policy/procedure, and I hope other editors are as well. All Wikipedia users agree to follow the policies explicitly when we join the community, and this includes admins. I personally find it objectionable to the extreme that there are admins here arguing to ignore policy (and endorsing the deletion) on the basis of arguments grounded in censorship. --MalcolmGin 13:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article has the wrong content and the wrong titlke, as this one did, undeleting and listing serves no purpose other than to waste more time and effort. You can have it userfied to work on if you like. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say the point is "What is best for the encyclopedia?" I believe Slim was acting in good faith here, and that bringing this article back (without prejudice to some separate, hypothetical, correctly sourced article) is cutting off our nose to spite our face. Nandesuka 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As should be clear, I'm a policy-loyalist to the extreme, so please cite policy/procedure that supports your procedure, otherwise you are wasting my time. --MalcolmGin 15:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, then, "what is best for the encyclopedia" is not two admins deciding what's best for the rest of us, especially when we have a series of consensually-laid out policies regarding what should be removed without discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopaedia, ignore them!. There is absolutely no sense whatsoever slavishly following process just so we can all look at this and agree it's an uncited recipe with an OR title, thus neatly failing three core policies in one. No, what's important is not whether process was followed. What's important is, is this article of any conceivable use to the encyclopaedia? Answer: not as far as any of us can tell. I'll userfy it for you to play with if you like, but we have quite enough crap articles without arguing endlessly over another one. The content belongs in Darvon, with proper attribution to relibale sources. You'll find nothing in this article thatwill help get from here to there, but you are welcome to the text if you want it. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and WP:ATT and WP:NOT are policy. Articles that egregiously violate policy are deleted. Articles that are reposted despite egregiously violating policy are protected against re-creation. And policy is, we are supposed to be at least reasonably clueful. I really can't believe the length of this argument over an article which everyone who has read it agrees is dross on a number of levels. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason it has come up is because some people (including me) feel very strongly about Wikipedia's no censorship policy, and the deletion clearly violated that! Now, to retroactively justify this out-of-process and offensive deletion, you cite WP:IAR, which has never trumped WP:CENSOR! Worse, you set yourself up as the sole arbiter of whether this article is attributable. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The proper place to find out is AfD! Note that the logs suggest that this article has never once been deleted for violating policy! Admins are not censors, and this deserves to go to AfD, if for no other reason, to drive that point home. Some people may oppose censorship only because they want to see pictures of boobies and penises, but some of oppose it because we think it's wrong, even when it doesn't involve boobies and penises! Xtifr tälk 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said elsewhere in this discussion, you are arguing, quite handily and well, for the next step in the process. It's clear that proper policy/procedure shows that this deletion was improper. What we should be doing, if we follow policy/procedure is undelete this article, unprotect it, give X number of days for editors to come up with a properly cited article. If after X number of days the article is not properly cited, put the article up for AfD. That's how the process goes. Speedy deleting this article is/was improper, and I don't think you can argue effectively that it wasn't. As I've also already stated, in my opinion it is objectionable to the extreme that you believe (and others do as well) that admins should be free to reinterpret policy as suits them. That encourages the public impression that there is a Cabal, that admins think they know better, and that they think they don't have to follow the same rules everyone else does. People keep arguing that Darvon cocktail makes Wikipedia look badly. What about the image projected by rogue admins who don't follow the rules but are allowed to because they say so? If you don't like the rules, change them. Don't just subvert them when you feel like it. --MalcolmGin 13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find one reliable source (that is discussing euthanasia in the Netherlands) that includes dextropropoxyphene as part of a euthanasia procedure. However, it doesn't call it a "Darvon cocktail", it gives different dosages to the ones in the deleted version of this article, it doesn't include at least one of the drugs mentioned in the article (I'm leaving out specifics.), and it presents the recipe as just one small part of a larger discussion of several recommended euthanasia methods. (Apparently, a set of guidelines was created in 1987, giving several choices. Our euthanasia article is clearly missing some history.) The article didn't discuss the subject in context, used a made-up name, related the subject to suicide rather than euthanasia, and wasn't even factually correct, to boot. Whilst it should have gone through AFD in the first place, if this article is undeleted, I recommend that it be sent immediately to AFD, where you can record my opinion right at the outset in favour of deleting it as unverifiable from reliable sources, with the reliable sources saying something quite different, that shouldn't be covered in an article by this title. It's a classic example of Usenet/WWW folklore, originating from wholly unreliable sources (some participants in a newsgroup), that doesn't belong here. Uncle G 20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment all of this would possibly be relevant at AfD, but it in no ways justifies a speedy. If verifiability will consist of adding the dosages, I'll certainly defend that. "If you stay under water you'll drown" and "if you stay under water more than 3 minutes you'll drown" are both of them perfectly legal statements. Only the Foundation has the authority to decide otherwise about a dosage range. The dosage should be given in ranges in any case, there is for no substance a single fixed amount which is lethal. See LD50DGG 00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed with respect to friends I've had who've taken euthanasia, as far as I understand it, the dosages of whatever terminal medications are dispensed by hospices are calculated from body mass and whatever other clinical metabolic information the hospice has for the person taking the medications, cocktail or not. --MalcolmGin 01:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, I'll avoid most of the arguments that have been mulled over repeatedly, but one view that I think has yet to be countered is the idea that this article is a how-to. The most direct (and somewhat ironic) counterargument is to compare this article to wikipedia's articles on various cocktails. For example, Martini (cocktail) not only says what's in the drink, but how much of each item and a significant section on perpetration. Admittedly martini might be breaking policy, but the darvon cocktail article comes nowhere close. It doesn't describe how much to use, how to prepare the ingredients or how to consume them. If you're going to call any article which lists it's components a how to, then it's also time to delete steel. Vicarious 02:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Guy, pharmacological mix of a pain reliever, anticonvulsant, sedative-hypnotic, antiemetic, Wikipedia is not a pharmacy, no dosage info, WP:OR, unsourced.--Dakota 03:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Guy. Why would we list something that will just be deleted anyway per WP:OR and lack of citations? Per badlydrawnjeff, while the rules are good from stopping anarchy, they are not the purpose of the community and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Furthermore, as stated above, you can be bold and ignore the rules if it helps Wikipedia in the end -- this is why the article was speedied. We're not here to debate policy or rules, we're here to make Wikipedia as good as it can be. So why waste time here and make Wikipedia more of a bureaucracy than it already is? It would seem, per this debate, that many of us are losing site of Wikipedia's original goal. Rockstar (T/C) 06:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might be deleted. Not "will", "might". We don't know that it would still be OR and citation-free after five days at AfD! That's part of the point of listing something at AfD—it gives the creators (and other interested parties) a last-minute change to clean up an article and add proper references. Which is why the speedy criteria are so narrow! Anything that might have a chance should be given a chance. It's quite possible that the people who have repeatedly created this article have all the references we want—after all, they're the ones that created it, and surely they know what their own sources were. I have seen numerous articles at AfD that I was convinced could not possibly be saved where someone has come up with some good references at the last minute, and turned an OR piece of crap into a damn good start. Sure, it's rare, but it happens often enough that I'm convinced these rules are important and not just bureaucracy! And I find it amazing that a prod always gets overturned, no questions asked, but an improper speedy which should have been a prod, at most, turns into a huge debate! Why not WP:IAR whenever a prod undeletion is asked for? Xtifr tälk 09:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because we don't know if it will be deleted, and I don't think the speedy helps the project at all. Interestingly enough, by censoring something we don't like, it appears that we're losing WP's goal that way, not by trying to figure out if a piece of informaiton is worthwhile. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point: forget the speedy discussion, it seems as though the search for sources has already been exhausted in this deletion review. I, personally, along with other editors, have searched and found nothing reliable. Thus it seems pointless to relist it and go through the same process that has already been done here. Don't misinterpret my statements, I'm not saying that everything should be speedied or that we should completely abandon the AfD or Prod process -- I'm saying that sometimes the rules don't apply to every situation and that it's pointless to be bureaucratic when we can just use common sense. Rockstar (T/C) 16:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen other cases where established editors at AfD (including me) have been unable to find reliable sources until someone who knows the subject comes along and knows just where to look. To me, the fact that this kept getting recreated strongly suggests that this actually has a better chance of having sources than many prodded OR stubs that get undeleted without question. And that, combined with a strong smell of censorship and hints of pink-cheeked admins (first time I've ever linked to that essay without my tongue firmly in cheek) says to me that a simple, uncomplicated listing at AfD is not only the right thing to do, but our best path to improving the encyclopedia. To me, that is common sense, TYVM!  :) Xtifr tälk 20:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen that happen in AfDs too. But per numerous searches (including taking Google searches out to the thousands and a comprehensive search on LexisNexis), nothing reliable has come up. Furthermore, I have seen nothing that has convinced me that any admin was rogue-ing around and attempting to "censor" Wikipedia. This is a common sense matter, and, furthermore, whatever happened to assuming good faith? Rockstar (T/C) 05:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Wholly unverifiable content which lacks any reliable sources, which means it *must* (not "might") fail any AfD that will be brought, because AfD is not a vote, and WP:V is fundamental policy - no "consensus" can override it. If, then, it will be an automatic "delete," I see no reason to go through process for the sake of process. If reliable sources are found, the article can be recreated at any time - just notify an admin that you've got sources. FCYTravis 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy criteria? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, if the article is entirely unverifiable at this time, there's no reason to put the article through a "process" which Wikipedia policy dictates it must fail. Furthermore, for those who want to keep the article, when it gets deleted by AfD, even if you *find* a source 6 months from now, you'll have to go through DRV to get the article back. If you can't find sources for it now, the speedy will stand until sources are found - no more DRV mess needed. FCYTravis 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • More eyes may find the sources you look for - we don't run the AfD at DRV. So, again, CSD criteria? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:SNOW. This article has no chance of survival as currently written and despite repeated Google and Medline searches, nothing has been found to support the article's existence. The burden of proof is on those who include content to demonstrate that it can be verifiably sourced. They've failed, so far. Find a source, and I change my vote. That's all it takes. Apparently, for you, that's too much to ask. I repeat my offer - if someone finds a source, just leave a note on my Talk: page and I'll undo the salting posthaste. That's all I'm interested in - verifiability and encyclopedicity. Not process or rules or "speedy criteria." FCYTravis 22:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you can't justify it. Gotcha. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Process uber alles. Gotcha. FCYTravis 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just protecting the masses against abuse. No harm in that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Supporting the immediate deletion of an admittedly-unverifiable medical article for which even a single reference cannot be found is "abuse?" That's so bizarre a claim as to be laughable. FCYTravis 00:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Is it that bizarre? I don't think so. Supporting the deletion of something with no legitimate justification is abusive, yes. I'm sorry if you don't agree, and you should probably stay away from CSDs for a while if that's the case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • badlydrawnjeff badgers every single "endorse" voter and calls them abusive. Film at 11. Nandesuka 00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No, it's called making a human judgement, which is what administrators are given mops and buckets for. We are not robots. We are allowed to make decisions based on our own good sense and interpretation of the situation. If an admin's call is a bad one, there's recourse - to DRV, to RFC and ultimately, to the ArbCom.
                      • If this DRV is successful, it'll go to AFD. If the DRV isn't successful, you can appeal with an RfC for abuse of power. You can even take it upstairs to RfAr if you like. They've not been shy about yanking the sysop bit lately.
                      • Or, if you were really interested in improving the encyclopedia, rather than just invoking process for the sake of process, you could dig in and find a freaking source to verify the freaking article and shut all of us up, ending this freaking mess. Your call. But see, I don't think you believe there's a source for this either. All you want to do is drag this out to prove your freaking point that we should all be following process to the exact letter, crossing all t's and dotting all i's, ensuring that no marks are made outside the bubbles and that we do not bend, fold, spindle or mutilate the 52 forms in quadruplicate which must be correctly completed before deleting an article which is in flagrant violation of not one, but several of our most basic policies - WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR just to begin with. FCYTravis 00:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I have no interest in running an AfD at DRV. If this DRV fails - and, logically, it should not - then I may in fact have to escalate it. We'll cross that bridge when it comes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I have yet to be convinced that any admin has abused his/her power. I'm afraid that some of us are taking this DRV personally. Furthermore, I'm with FCYTravis -- it seems that some of us are doing a reverse WP:POINT -- purposely following all the rules to prove a point, when it would be easier just to let it go. Rockstar (T/C) 01:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Do any of the overturn supporters really think that sending it straight to Afd, wasting 5 days of debate and redeleting it is worth following the letter of the process. It has no chance of being a real article and should remain deleted. Yes the deletion does not follow the LETTER of policy but we are not a democratic, wikilawyering bunch of process wonks; we are writing a referenced encyclopedia. Occasionally we must bend he rules in the interest of a better encyclopedia and this is a perfect example- Peripitus (Talk) 02:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because you asked, yes - I think that there's a good chance that this could be kept with more eyes and more people seeing a) what's there, and b) possibly having some work on it. Contrary to the perpetuated myths, this has little to do with "process" and more to do with giving it a proper hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, but I do notice that there are no news articles to be found, no journal articles and nothing that shows this is not a cruel and very very stupid hoax. This is one instance where I believe we should take the attitude of no references -> no article whereas on any other subject (like your favourite, biographies) more leeway is rightfully allowed. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yes, this horrible, bureaucratic process that will probably cause some admin to waste whole minutes of his life. That sure would be a disaster! Then of course, there's those 5 "wasted" days of debate. Yes, Wikipedia will have to screech to a complete halt, because this article is at AfD. As for finding sources, let me say again, why does this keep getting recreated? It's not like your typical garage band, webforum, shareware game or furrycomic, where you can expect a small but persistent group to keep trying to promote their favorite hobbyhorse. (If it were, I would probably be shouting IAR with the rest of you.) This is a really odd one, and the fact that it keeps getting recreated makes me pretty sure that there must be some sort of source out there. Maybe not a reliable one, but we don't know, since we can't find it! I think AfD gives us the best chance of rousting the source so we can judge its merits. And maybe, just maybe, the result will be a good article we can be proud to keep. So, if we do the right thing, and follow process (oh noes!) in this one instance, either we'll improve Wikipedia or a couple of people will have wasted a few minutes. I think that's a risk worth taking. And if someone accuses me of being a "process wonk" again, I'm going to have to get out my LART and show people what kind of process it is capable of!  :) Xtifr tälk 07:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sarcasm needs work, as subtle is better. I think I said we weren't process wonks but I do admit your way is funnier - Peripitus (Talk) 08:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe someone should test the method to prove verifiability. Maybe we should give the process wonks their time of day and list it. Or maybe we should just keep it deleted because you, I, and everyone else knows that an AfD will just end in a delete. Whatever. This has gotten stupid and out of hand. Rockstar (T/C) 19:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Honestly, while I don't think "keep" is a probable result at AfD, I do think that "merge" is a strong possibility. Assuming the persistent re-creators haven't been scared off completely, and can be persuaded to reveal their source(s), we may well conclude that the topic deserves a mention somewhere (perhaps in the coiner's article), even if it isn't notable enough for its own article. As I say, I have no problem with an IAR closure when the (re)creator's motives are clear, but this one is murky and strange and deserves (IMO) a little further investigation. Especially since the speedy was clearly invalid (nobody has denied that) and the creators have never had a chance to justify themselves (and probably don't know this review is happening). Xtifr tälk 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your entire argument is based upon the false premises that (a) the article is persistently re-created, (b) that the creators were working from sources, and (c) no-one here knows the source for this content. In fact, as you can see from the deletion log, the article was deleted before only once, on 2006-08-30, and thus re-created only once, and not "persistently re-created" at all. Furthermore: The initial edit of the re-creation, by Mattcam3 (talk · contribs) included a "from Wikipedia" link at the bottom and was word-for-word identical with the immediately prior deleted content, indicating that the "source" that that editor was using was a cached version of the article from prior to its deletion, and this "re-creation" was nothing more than a resurrection of deleted content from a cached copy of the article.

              It is also untrue that no-one here knows the source for this content. I know the source for this content. As I said above, I went looking for sources. The source for this content is postings on Usenet newsgroups, and web pages whose content is gleaned from those postings. This idea of a "Darvon cocktail" originates, as I wrote, with some participants in a newsgroup, going by pseudonyms such as "I_Love_Busoms". Usenet postings are simply not reliable sources. They have unknown provenance and clearly don't go through fact checking processes. The fact that one of the earliest Usenet postings on the subject is a "I haven't got this to work myself, yet." posting should be amply illustrative of utter lack of research and fact checking that is behind this idea, if the simple fact that the entire idea originates as hearsay on Usenet is not damning enough. As I wrote above, this whole notion is simply Usenet/WWW folklore.

              In stark contrast, the sources that talk about the use of dextropropoxyphene in euthanasia in the Netherlands cite guidelines created by the nl:Nederlandse Vereniging voor Vrijwillige Euthanasie. Part of the history that we are missing from euthanasia is the Postma case and its fallout.

              We don't need this rubbish, and my opinion at AFD will be to outright delete it, not to merge it anywhere. What we actually do need is more content from reliable sources on a different subject. Uncle G 01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

              • To a) I see four deletions, on 2006-08-30, 2007-02-25, 2007-03-07 and 2007-04-02. Without access to the history, I had (and have) no way to interpret that as anything but four creations. To b) I cannot see the initial edit of any of the recreations. All I really have access to is some very disturbing and misguided delete comments, both by Slimvirgin and Doc glasgow. To c) I did see your earlier reference to this being "Usenet/WWW folklore", but did not read that as clearly saying that you'd identified the source. Now that I do, I feel much better. Thank you very much for addressing my questions directly, rather than making vague implications about bureaucracy-obsessed "policy wonks", though.  :) Cheers, Xtifr tälk 05:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A few Endorsers are asserting that research for proper citations is complete and has come up empty. This is a misrepresentation. I've put about 30 - 60 minutes into using Google and PubMed to try to find verifiable, proper attributions. There still exists a strong possibility that a basic public library search (anyone have LexisNexis?) and a search of various other reference works I do not have ready access to may bring up a suitable reference. I would not throw out the possibility of proper citations just yet. Another factor is that I'm currently travelling and attending to family duties, and the rest of April is looking pretty bad for me getting to the proper kind of library to do the research. What would be a wonderful gesture, I think, would be for a deletion endorser to put up some time and research to try to put the subject of citations properly to rest, instead of misrepresenting what I've said about citations and sources. --MalcolmGin 03:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have full access to LexisNexis and a very comprehensive University Medical Library. I was in the Med Library earlier today and went ahead and spent some time checking up on the topic. There was nothing in either the Med library or even a complete and comprehensive search on LexisNexis. The topic is a neologism at best that has been promoted and furthered by newsgroups and Usenets. Rockstar (T/C) 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. I still strongly object to short-circuited process, but I also see that there's a lot of momentum among editors and admins to short-circuit and I know that my force of will alone can't move all mountains. I'll keep my overturn on record, but it does look like majority (realize that this does not mean consensus) is to endorse the deletion even though it's not a subject of full process. For now it sounds like it'll need to stay in Greener grasses (talk · contribs)' user pages until/unless the title's phrase makes it out of neologism land and is listed by a verifiable source in some useful context. Thanks for doing the research work. --MalcolmGin 03:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Neutral per Uncle G's direct answers to my direct questions above. I cannot bring myself to actually endorse what I consider to be the most inappropriate, misguided, and borderline-offensive deletion log entry I've seen in...well, ever! But I will withdraw from the debate, as I feel my strongest motives for persisting have been addressed. Xtifr tälk 05:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_10&oldid=1142605372"