I would like to present deletion review of article as it is prematurely deleted without giving an opportunity to achieve wider scrutiny. Furthermore, the article was corroborated by citation that seems to be of notable character. The confusion may be due to nature of the article that is supporting interdisciplinary approach in medicine (combining alternative and allopathic), and that may have created impression of artificial synthesis that provoked quite a steer, but bottom line is that concept is based on system biology and as such it is using multi platform foundations and as such, in my opinion should be reviewed once again to prevent unfair deletion.
I tend to believe in consensus so would be more comfortable to allow other editors to make their views rather then small number involved in the AfD in order to create real consensus about the topic. The article was prematurely deleted by strength of few editors without giving opportunity for wider consensus and since there some personal accusations during AfD feel that some editor may have also been highly charged or even biased, deleting some references, and claiming sock puppetry for valid KEEP comments, thus affecting final judgement of administrator who then did not have choice but to delete article.
I feel the whole issue need to be reassessed and give article fair chance to face wider audience for editing and its final destiny. Bogorodica (talk)
Endorse - I believe in consensus provides it goes the way I want it to, is not a valid reason to consider the consensus formed was invalid. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't prematurely deleted, it was deleted after a full discussion. There was nothing unfair. This is how we always do things. In the nomination statement you imply that Wikipedians didn't understand the article, but I don't think editors are as confused as you suggest. I think editors are well aware of interdisciplinary approaches in medicine. I don't think allopathic medicine or alternative medicine have anything to do with proper medical practice. They're fringe pseudoscience of the sort that Wikipedians are well-accustomed to dealing with. The extent to which they actually work as therapies is limited to the placebo effect. Our systems for getting rid of pseudoscience with the minimum amount of fuss are robust and efficient, and I'm pleased to see how well they're working. Endorse.—S MarshallT/C07:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the bar for things near/at WP:FRINGE is fairly high and consensus was this didn't make it to that bar. Reading the article, I can't disagree. All the socking provides some degree of confirmation that deletion was the right path. Hobit (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Considering the discussion at the AfD , and the nature of the article, no other decision would have been possible. This is clearly an advertisement for non-notable fringe. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the AFD discussion. Bogorodica's claim that it was "prematurely deleted" is incorrect, AFD proceeded to completion and Bogorodica had the chance to give their opinion in several comments before the debate closed. So did a number of, uh, new accounts that popped up to offer viewpoints ranging from the nonsensical ("knowledge like this needs to be shared!") to the really nonsensical ("DOCTORS HAS TO HAVE SPHERICAL APPROACH TO MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE"). To put it as gently as possible, these arguments failed to carry the debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind17:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I lost 70 new citations that are not currently part of the main article page. I was going to gradually add the sections contained therein at the talk page. The editor who requested the deletion has a long standing issues ownership [1] The current version suffers badly in readability [2] as well and QuackGuru misrepresented the deletion proposal. It also stated I was indef blocked, which is not the case. I had done work to the page this year, negating concerns of staledraft, and the copyvio allegation was resolved by changing a few words. Regardless, I put in dozens of hours compiling additional references and they're gone. Also, I did not have a chance to address the comments that were posted because I was blocked and didn't feel I had the chance to address the concerns raised. Thank you for your consideration. DVMt (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to be fair, you were indefinitely blocked, but that was later reviewed and you were unblocked after a fairly lengthy discussion on your talk page. That's fine (that's the way it should work) but the block wasn't misrepresented. The concerns raised (and the consensus that subsequently developed after Anne Delong's comment about half way through the discussion) related to WP:FAKEARTICLE. You continued to address QuackGuru's claims and comments but didn't really address Anne's which is what other editors then came to agree with. The sandbox was deleted on the basis that it functioned as a WP:FAKEARTICLE which is what the closing admin noted was the consensus that had developed. That didn't actually have anything to do with the nomination which didn't mention that guideline at all. The purpose of DRV is to review closes and deletions more than it is to review nominations for deletion. It seems like a fairly solid consensus and I can't really see any reason why the admin's close shouldn't be endorsed. St★lwart11103:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quackguru certainly had a lot to say during that AfD. It may be possible for a sysop to email you a copy of the deleted page so that your 70 citations are not lost; would that be a satisfactory resolution for you, DVMt?—S MarshallT/C07:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of DVMt's reply below perhaps a sysop could email him a copy of the deleted page and close the deletion review? We can achieve what the nominator wants without having to disturb the close, so I suggest we do that.—S MarshallT/C01:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru is making an allegation without any evidentiary support. You made the claim, so prove it. What are the MEDRS violations? What is the copyvio on the sandbox? QW is a reliable site and we see that Barrett is making a good distinction between scientific and non-scientific chiropractors. He is a notable skeptic. Quackguru, you've been warned about harassing me before. Stop trying to censor everything I'm working on to add to the scientific literature of manual and manipulative therapies. If you continue trying to own the articles, my work space and the topic itself my not assuming any good faith in me or my contributions, I will take this up with User:John so we can talk about your disruptive behaviour. I did lose all those citations and that would be agreeable User:S Marshall. DVMt (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously impossible to provide evidence of things when the evidence has been deleted. You are continuing to argue with QuackGuru but it wasn't his rationale that saw the content deleted. Arguing with him is unlikely to see your content restored given it's not his arguments you're actually seeking to overturn. S Marshall has made a good suggestion and you've accepted it. I strongly suggest you move on from there while being particularly careful about copyvio in any newly created content. St★lwart11101:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse continued deletion of the material, but no objection to a copy being sent to the author for their own use as suggested above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind17:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Can someone please review the deletion of this page as one of it primary contributors I was surprised to see it deletion. In hindsight perhaps the timeline of the companies product could be less detailed and I am prepared to undertake this edit. However the timeline of products is important and this page was a valueable source and widely referenced. I have no connection to the company concerned and 99% percent of the products are out of production so the page was never an advert! A lot of other brands have this kind of page and thinking of other hobbiest type products have detailed pages including product details taking camera as an example. Unfortunately the moderator Mark Arsten is no longer active so can't review the page deletion.Yachty4000 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see the article, but given the sparse attendance, I'm fine with a relist (reopening of the discussion) so that Yachty4000 can make his case and perhaps a few others might get involved. Hobit (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I can see the article, I want to note that the catalog part of the article isn't going to stand even if the article is kept. Yachty4000--I'd urge you to find some other host for this material. I've no doubt it's useful (I often user RC cars as a part of my job), but it's not really appropriate for a Wikipedia article... Do keep in mind, reliable sources are going to be needed to meet our inclusion guidelines or the whole article will be deleted. You might want to start looking (probably in hobbyist magazines) for sources. Hobit (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - agree, it seems to have been closed as (effectively) an uncontested PROD. If there is now a good-faith request that the discussion be reopened for further consideration, I can't see any harm in that. The original nominator and one other participant should be notified if that happens, though. St★lwart11102:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I am going to say Relist I am prepared once restored to reduce the pages content interms of details on each product and also I am not sure what they are distributors for is relevant. The aim is to provide a timeline of products and company history for the hobbiest interest. I was a bit surprised by the speed the content was deleted without notifying the main contributors thanks for looking into this. (talk) 9:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Relist (AfD nominator). It didn't get much interest at AfD so I'm happy to see more discussion of it, but it's an oversized product catalogue of an article on a supplier that just hasn't demonstrated notability of the core company itself, based on independent sources. There are two problems here: it is far from clear if the supplier reaches notability and most obviously, the transient parts catalogue aspect just isn't what WP is here to cover. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To answer some of the questions the supplier does have notability having won the World Championships been one of the main brands for the top of the sport and invented a number of technological advances. Other similar pages exist on wikipedia see the Category:Radio-controlled_car_manufacturers unless all brands are removed picking on this one for speedy deletion seems strange. This isn't a fringe hobby but one with worldwide appeal. As I said thankyou for looking into this all. I will read some more wikipedia guideline on referencing so it doesn't just rely on the manufacturer website. Yachty4000 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I am having one of those days can someone hide my IP address on this page as it logged out. I am truely sorry to be a pain. Yachty4000 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - although I'm not opposed to a relist per se, it seems unlikely to change the result. If the article can be fixed up, the smart thing to do is ask for it to be userfied, add some good, independent sources, then move it back to the mainspace, rather than run another AfD that probably won't turn out differently. WilyD09:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist if desired, but I agree with the comments above that it will be inevitably deleted unless drastically and immediately improved. My advice is that it would be much safer to do it in user space or draft space, DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have done an edit in my sandbox that dramatically cuts the length of the article down and makes it less of an advert! I have added a few more references. If the page can be relisted then I will update it. I see other similar pages like RC10. Thanks for sorting out my IP issue Yachty4000 (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, I guess, with no great enthusiasm. The AFD was very low-participation so it should technically get another look, but if this version is the best we can do I think it's likely headed for the rubbish pile again. Mostly self-sourced and reads like a catalog/flyer (complete with SKU numbers and prices!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind16:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
