Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 21 - Wikipedia
21 June 2006
Neanderthal theory of autism
- On 5 Aug 05, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of autism closed as copyvio. Deleted on 13 Aug 05.
- On 20 Sep 05, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum (a related page) closed as keep/rewrite
- On 16 Oct 05, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum closed as delete. Both versions deleted. "theory of autism" (no "spectrum") moved to user:Ombudsman's userspace)
- On 30 Oct 05, user:Ombudsman moved the article back from userspace into the main articlespace. No changes had been made to the article.
- On 31 Oct 05, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of autism 3 closed as speedy delete as recreated content
- On 13 June 06, stub recreated, then a confusing set of redirects were created between the "theory" and "theory ... spectrum" pages.
- On 21 June 06, both were speedy-deleted as recreated content and pages protected.
Article stub deleted for no apparent reason. It is claimed that the article was recreated after a previous deletion, but the previously deleted article clearly was not the same and wasn't created by the same author. I think the article should be undeleted, and people should be able to expand the content so a useful article can be maintained. --Rdos 13:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've notified Proto of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and protection. There have already been multiple AfDs for this article, not just the contents, but the actual subject matter, so it's not just whether this is the same as the previously-deleted content, but whether the subject itself should be kept on Wikipedia. The previous AfDs seem to indicate that it shouldn't. This AfD is the latest, and also provides links to all the other related AfDs. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted, forever and ever and ever. Note it was I who speedied this under CSD G4. Neanderthal theory of autism was a redirect Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum, which I also speedied. That was a rather vile (strictly in my opinion) article that was originally deleted back in October - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum. It was an original research piece, mainly written by Rdos, that stated people with autism were human-Neanderthal mutants. Recreations have been deleted before this. I won't go into the content his user page, or my interaction with him on his talk page - this is not relevant to DRV. Proto///type 14:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've added the history of this deletion debate above as best as I could sort it out. Rossami (talk)
- Comment: I really see no point in replacing a stub with no content or links with a protected page that notifies the deletion. Are these sysops so afraid of this theory that they cannot even bare to see a stub? --Rdos 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's that this theory is not notable and this article violates Wikipedia's no original research policies. Fear has nothing to do with it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it could violate no original research when it is a stub! It is notable because it has lots of references to it, and is well-known in the autistic community. As also is evident in Deathphoenix entry above, it is not the content that is disputed but the idea as such. I don't think Wikipedia has any policies against specific ideas. --Rdos 16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but the subject has already been deemed to be not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. The above AfDs have already determined the consensus. Your deletion review has not brought any new information to show that the articles were deleted out of process. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with that. The article originally was voted as keep. Then somebody moved it to another name, and it was once again AfDed. This time the people who disliked it had mobilzed many followers and therefore it was deleted. But I still don't see how a stub can be speedy deleted as "recreation" when it is clearly not the same article! --Rdos 18:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but the subject has already been deemed to be not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. The above AfDs have already determined the consensus. Your deletion review has not brought any new information to show that the articles were deleted out of process. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it could violate no original research when it is a stub! It is notable because it has lots of references to it, and is well-known in the autistic community. As also is evident in Deathphoenix entry above, it is not the content that is disputed but the idea as such. I don't think Wikipedia has any policies against specific ideas. --Rdos 16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's that this theory is not notable and this article violates Wikipedia's no original research policies. Fear has nothing to do with it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the only AFD closed as delete on the content of the article, to my eyes, is the 16 Oct 05 one, which to my eyes concluded the page failed WP:NOR. (The first was a copy-vio close, the 31 Oct 05 was a recreated content closure.) I do see that the author of the one closed for failing WP:NOR is also the user requesting deletion review here. As a non-admin, I can't tell if the new page also fails WP:NOR or is a recreation of that version. If the deleted stub had citations to reliable sources then it would not qualify in my eyes as recreated content. GRBerry 17:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC) And with Rossami's response, and the unreliable sources offered below, I see that we should Endorse Deletion. GRBerry 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The entire contents of the speedy-deleted stub were "The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum proposes that various psychiatric disorders such as autism, Asperger's syndrome, ADHD and Tourette syndrome are caused by ancient hybridisation with Neanderthals." with some wikification and a stub tag. There were no citations at all. By the way, in your comment above you linked to the 16 Oct discussion but piped the link to read "20 Sep 05". Rossami (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Major oops, the one I piped to is the one I wanted. Fixed now. GRBerry 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The entire contents of the speedy-deleted stub were "The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum proposes that various psychiatric disorders such as autism, Asperger's syndrome, ADHD and Tourette syndrome are caused by ancient hybridisation with Neanderthals." with some wikification and a stub tag. There were no citations at all. By the way, in your comment above you linked to the 16 Oct discussion but piped the link to read "20 Sep 05". Rossami (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability review. There is a review in the "natural variation blog" [1] and [2]. There is a Yahoo-group [3], 112 members, several professionals in psychology/psychiatry. --Rdos 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but how does a blog and a yahoo group confer any kind of verifiability or notability on anything? Proto///type 09:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The "blog" is a site for autistic peer-review. It looks at various causes of autism and evaluates them. I suppose this doesn't impress you much, but anyway. The rest of the "old" references are on my user page and in the deleted article from last year. --Rdos 16:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but how does a blog and a yahoo group confer any kind of verifiability or notability on anything? Proto///type 09:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and protection, the history of this article is a quintessential example of the need for WP:NOR. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 18:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted and protected per GRBerry, vile piece of original research. Kimchi.sg 11:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per WP:NOR, notability, and absurdity. Sandy 13:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion of self-admitted OR. Also ask User:Rdos (again) to remove it from his user page as the neanderthal link is offensive to some autistic and aspie editors. Just zis Guy you know? 13:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not delete it from my user page, and I'm sure that more autistic and aspie-editors find the proposed causes in Causes of autism much more offending than the Neanderthal theory. It really doesn't come down to if it is published in peer-reviewed journals or not. It is a matter of wanting to see autism as an disorder versus a difference. --Rdos 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a crucial difference: those have been peer-reviewed and published in reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 11:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not delete it from my user page, and I'm sure that more autistic and aspie-editors find the proposed causes in Causes of autism much more offending than the Neanderthal theory. It really doesn't come down to if it is published in peer-reviewed journals or not. It is a matter of wanting to see autism as an disorder versus a difference. --Rdos 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. No problem with the AfD, no assertion that the issues have changed. I don't really see the argument for overturning here. Mangojuicetalk 03:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. This is one of the most ridiculous ideas since Time Cube. Rdos is disrupting Wikipedia with this DRV request to make a point. Brian G. Crawford 08:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]