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]

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]

• Otto has a point. Can we cite a reputable third-party opinion supporting inclusion in every single case? Most cases? A few cases? Guy (Help!) 14:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. If there are some OR issues, fix them. Otherwise, the consensus is fairly clear that this can be handled properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 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]

• I doubt that there aren't any reliable sources for this data. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, so write a new article based on them. Or source the current one. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've watchlisted it for now. I'll do what I can. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 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 list of crazy films together in an original but not enkuklios paideia (hence encylopaedia, literally translated as 'in a circle of instruction'), which may nevertheless offer an opportunity for readers to obtain a well-rounded education with the application of Critical thinking to the reading a compendium.--Ziji 11:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Overturn and list. Answers.com has a mirror still, so we can see what was there - dangerous? Probably. But so is erotic asphyxiation, and a) we're not censored, and b) we don't speedy things on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. Maybe it's not appropriate, but that's not for one or two people to decide. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Wikipedia is not a how-to, and we don't need unsourced articles on the very best^{[citation needed]} way to kill yourself, under titles for which Wikipedia apopears to be the leading source. Let's see a cited workable version before unsalting. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out where we delete and salt unsourced "ways to kill yourself?" Because I'm not seeing anything in the criteria for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's under WP:CLUE and Wikipedia:Don't waste everybody's time by insisting we go thorugh an AfD for an unsourced article with an original research title. Process for process' sake. Do fee free to come up with a proper, sourced version. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It strikes me that a reaction like this is not the best one to a properly filed procedural inquiry about whether process was correct or proper. --MalcolmGin 14:38, 10 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]

• WP:CLUE tells me not to delete something that may be a worthwhile article. This wouldn't be a waste of time, in fact, I think it'd be likely to be kept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 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]

• In user space, at User:MalcolmGin/Darvon for example. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 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]
  • The wider point is that none of those are valid reasons for nuking, as much as you may want them to be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Your first two points are not valid speedy reasons. I disagree with calling the content of the article advice; what if someone took our advice on any of the suicide methods? WODUP 04:36, 11 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]

• If it was deleted because it was unsourced, then it was an improper deletion. If you want to speedy delete unsourced articles, try to resurrect the soundly rejected proposal to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:13, 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]

• Yes, and practice is to not outright delete unsourced content. It's ridiculous to support such removals, and you should know better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 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]
• 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]

• The point is not whether the article has merit. The point is whether an administrator followed proper policy/procedure. --MalcolmGin 15:00, 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]

• your assertion is handily supported by CSD: Non-criteria: Original Research, among other related policies and guidelines about ownership, the summary of reasons for deletion on WP:DP, the process for proposing deletion/AfD and WP:PROD (and I'm sure this isn't entirely comprehensive). --MalcolmGin 15:24, 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]