| Revision as of 01:08, 4 June 2014 editBogorodica (talk | contribs)33 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:09, 4 June 2014 edit undoBogorodica (talk | contribs)33 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
| :{{DRV links|<Bioregulatory medicine>|xfd_page=<Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bioregulatory medicine>|article=}} | :{{DRV links|<Bioregulatory medicine>|xfd_page=<Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bioregulatory medicine>|article=}} | ||
| 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 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. |
I feel the whole issue need to be reassessed and give article fair chance to face wider audience for editing and its final destiny.] (])] (]) 01:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
Revision as of 01:09, 4 June 2014
< 2014 June 2 Deletion review archives: 2014 June 2014 June 4 >3 June 2014
]
- ] (]|||logs|]|) (])
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)Bogorodica (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DVMt/sandbox
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DVMt/sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
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 The current version suffers badly in readability 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) DVMt (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
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 User:Mark_Arsten is no longer active so can't review the page deletion.Yachty4000 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- 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)