Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 17

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Deleted to prevent people finding an essay which was previously there. Linked from external sources. Deleting admin claimed it was a cross-namespace redirect, but not only was it not even a redirect, but even if it had been, policy doesn't cover WP to user-space redirect. Worldtraveller 11:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There's a relevant ANI thread here.--Kchase T 12:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Restore As far as I can tell, User:JzG has been speedying this without consensus or a firm policy basis after Worldtraveller allegedly edit warred over the contents. It seems logical to permit a redirect unless further explanation for deletion is given. I don't see how the deletions met any criterion of WP:CSD.--Kchase T 12:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Restore as per Kchase02 (MichaelJLowe 13:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC))
• This is superfluous. By consensus at WP:AN the original is now back in project space and editable. The redirect was deleted as violating WP:OWN, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT webspace and other policies, several admins agreed with that interpretation, all of us (I think without exception) agreed that what we really wanted was the essay back in project space and editable. Which it now is. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Cybergrind (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD1 |AfD2)

I don't understand. The debate showed the outcome as 'no consensus' but the article has been deleted and protected. Why this antagonism towards a random music subgenre? In any case, the basic description was merged into Grindcore as a subgenre of it, so I don't see what the harm would be in at least making Cybergrind redirect there. Also, the page included a useful list of bands that is now inaccessible. This list should be copied into List of Grindcore Bands and pasted there under the "Cybergrind" subheading. Please don't ignore this. It's hard enough to find information on underground music as it is without fascist editors trolling through Wikipedia deleting anything that's not pop or classic rock.

• Huh? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybergrind (2nd nomination) was unanimous in favor of deletion. Endorse deletion. Chick Bowen 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• From what I can gather, the AfD was in favour of deleting the article, but had no consensus on whether to purely delete it, or merge and delete. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as there was nobody arguing otherwise. This was recreated and subsequently deleted 3 more times, leading to the protection. It perhaps could be unprotected and redirected to Grindcore (and then watchlisted to ensure nobody tries to change the redirect). Trebor 15:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Makes sense; it's now a redirect to Grindcore. It's still protected so no need to watchlist it. Chick Bowen 16:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Self-diagnosed Asperger syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I believe that the deletion of this article was slightly questionable, as many of the delete votes were made before the article was substantially rewritten (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-diagnosed Asperger syndrome to see). The content at the time that the article was deleted was referenced and uncontroversial. Additionally, with numerous "Keep" votes, there was no consensus for deletion.

If the judgement is that the page is to remain deleted, I humbly request that an admin at least posts the contents of the article at the time of deletion to my talk page, so that I can at least attempt to merge it with Asperger syndrome. Lankiveil 02:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I find it hard to believe that the article was well-referenced, but nobody noticed. Especially with many people saying there were no sources, without contradiction. -Amarkov moo! 02:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, as I pointed out before, the state of the article when it was actually nominated was poor, I substantially rewrote the article, adding legitimate references to it. This happened about Feb 12, after most of the "no referencing" votes were cast. Lankiveil 07:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse deletion whilst not wishing to rerun the AFD though there are now some sources for this, the key statement seems to still be unreferenced " refers to the trend of individuals", where is the reliable source describing this "trend"? We don't have articles on self-diagnosed influenza etc. etc. The whole basis for this article appears flawed. The main body describing comparison of test result between those informally diagnosed and clinically diagnosed is interesting, but I can't see why it wouldn't just be incorporated into the Aspergers article. --pgk 09:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is one of these places where deletion seems drastic. Some of the referenced statements could have been merged into the Asperger's article. Perhaps undelete the history, but leave the redirect, then let those interested in this area make the call on whether there is anything to merge.--Doc^g 10:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry folks, missed the obvious trolling.--Doc^g 19:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

*Endorse deletion for now. The original article did not have reliable sources, and references are needed. --sunstar net^talk 10:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Great joke, bad article. Study: Most Self-Diagnosed "Asperger's" Patients Just Assholes - was this based on a study of a certain self-diagnosed Aspie editor of my acquaint? Anyway, a clear delete. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per pgk and JzG. No reliable sources were provided at the time. Unreferenced, but if the author wants to work on it in their userspace, then that may be a fair compromise. --sunstar net^talk 11:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid closure within admin discretion, and anyway I sincerely doubt that this is a major enough phenomenon, assuming it actually exists, to merit a separate article. Quite apart from anything else, the article is potentially infinite in the sense that anyone can diagnose themselves with anything: doesn't mean they have it. And how many people correctly diagnose themselves with Aspergers? The whole thing is dubious at best. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I can't see anything wrong with the closure. Trebor 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)