Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 3

List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page was speedy deleted under WP:CFSD#G7, however I am the author, and did not make a request for deletion. 117Avenue (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you discuss this with the deleting admin, User:RHaworth? I didn't see any discussion on his talk page just a notice of this review. If the deletion was made in error, he may be happy to restore the deleted versions. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy restore. It's simple common sense that we should instantly restore any G7 if contested by a good faith editor.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically the deletion should be overturned, per SMarshall above, but the current outcome (the page redirecting to List of Hannah Montana songs) is correct. List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana and List of Hannah Montana songs should be duplicate articles. If there was anything encyclopedic in the deleted page that isn't in the existing page, then restore the page and merge appropriately. ThemFromSpace 13:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do nothing, and speedy close as a waste of time. There's nothing useful in the deleted revisions (basically the nom and Richhoncho (talk · contribs) edit warring over whether the redirect should be added to Category:Lists of songs by recording artists, which they were still doing after the deletion), and both the speedy deletion and this DRV seems to be an outgrowth of this utterly silly edit war (I'd have blocked them both had they not stopped edit warring a few days ago). I'm not really opposed to restoring it, but I do not think we should condone such a utterly pointless waste of our time. T. Canens (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So you condone the act of an admin not doing a simple, and required, check before a deletion? 117Avenue (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, but I think it more important to not condone a pointy waste of everyone's time of DRV when the nominator did not even bother asking the deleting admin. T. Canens (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I question the trustworthiness of the deleting admin, as the deletion could not have been made in err, and chose a side in the "edit war". 117Avenue (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close without prejudice  Nothing to discuss here until the deleting admin has replied to the concern.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please accept my apologies for making these comments. 117Avenue was NOT the author of the page deleted, I was the author when I inadvertently moved List of HM songs to List of songs recorded by HM. 117Avenue has recreated the page in any case without recourse to the deletion review. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trypophobia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted a few years ago under the false assumption that it was a hoax or fabrication. However, new research has been done on the topic, summarized in a Washington Post article (which also pokes fun at Wikipedia for deleting it), See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/phobia-about-holes-is-not-officially-recognized-but-uk-scientists-look-into-it/2012/10/01/c1797a8c-dff0-11e1-a421-8bf0f0e5aa11_story.html?hpid=z5 Many maladies not officially recognized by medical establishment have WP pages, including phobias. Among them: Ephebiphobia, Drapetomania, Gay bowel syndrome, and Miliary fever. Deletion was based on erroneous assumption that it was a hoax or fraud, not that it was not officially recognized. In addition to Washington Post, references to the malady are in several books, including Abnormal Psychology (2009), Linguistics for Everyone (2010), and Face Your Fears: A Proven Plan to Beat Anxiety, Panic, Phobias, and Obsessions (2012).

If it helps, here is a mock-up of proposed change: User:Vkil/Trypophobia

I attempted to contact the person who made the deletion, User:Orangemike, but he did not respond. Another admin there told me to re-write the article, which I did. No response. I followed the procedures at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, but they told me the person responsible was not Orangemike, but someone else I attempted to contact the deleting administrator, User:Seicer but he has retired. I was told to appeal here. This process is Byzantine, and my frustration is growing. Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow the draft to be moved into the main space - original deletion discussion was closed properly, the G4 appears proper, but the new article appears to satisfy WP:N, and is certainly not a re-creation of the previously deleted article, and successfully addresses the concerns of the original AfD. WilyD 08:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A definition belongs on Wiktionary, since the word's well-attested by those sources. We need a soft redirect to that. But, beyond the bare definition, what is there to write in an encyclopaedia article? To quote one of the article's sources, "Attempts to add trypophobia to the Oxford English Dictionary and even to establish a Wikipedia page have been rebuffed because there hasn’t been any research published on the subject." Which is right: we can't have an article on a psychology topic where there's been no psychological research published.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. Plenty of WP articles on psychology topics with less research than Trypophobia. In fact, the vast majority of phobia articles have less research, eg: Ablutophobia, Agraphobia, Aichmophobia, Anthophobia,just to list a few of the phobias that begin with A. Are you suggesting that all these phobias be reduced to dictionary redirects? The rejection by WP you mentioned happened years ago, notability is now established, see the mockup: User:Vkil/Trypophobia. Thanks, Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes: all of those need to be converted to wiktionary redirects because they consist of nothing but a definition, and Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Notability isn't the issue here. Lack of published research is the issue. You can counter this, of course, by linking to or citing any piece of published credible research that's specifically about Trypophobia.—S Marshall T/C 13:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not seeing research needed, just coverage. There does seem to be plenty in the draft. Hobit (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow the draft to be moved into the main space - The only thing you need to do at this point to have an article in article space on Trypophobia is either 1) overcome the reasons for deletion or 2) present significant new information has come to light since a deletion as a basis for allowing an article be recreated. The AfD noted: It's a thing made up, likely hoax, Non-notable, nonsense. The draft at User:Vkil/Trypophobia overcomes the It's a thing made up, likely hoax, and nonsense AfD arguments. As for Non-notable (doesn't meet WP:GNG), the draft at User:Vkil/Trypophobia contains significant new information has come to light since the 11 March 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trypophobia. --> Allow draft to be moved into article space. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow the draft to be moved into the main space seems to meet WP:N at this point. Hobit (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]