Psychiatric abuse (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I cannot find anyone claiming to be the administrator who deleted this. No evidence of a vote taken. A "clear majority" is not a consensus. The contents of the deleted article are not adequately reviewed in the deletion review. I would like to see it. I disagree with the conclusion that psychiatric abuse refers to either (1) medical malpractice or (2) political abuse of psychiatry or (3) proprietary pseudoscience. On the last point in particular, the name of a certain legitimate religion appears 34 times in the deletion review, and I would be interested to compare this to how often that same religion appears in the deleted article. 66.239.61.216 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prioryman:. If I'm following the logs correctly, the AfD was closed by ChrisO, who has since changed usernames to Prioryman. In any case, I have done a temporary undelete of Psychiatric abuse for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well unless I'm missing something, the article was deleted, DRV sent it back to AFD, than AFD2 here closed by another admin deleted it. But that was all 8 or so years ago. This seems a bit pointless, there is no barrier to someone writing a new article on the subject if they can do so within the expected standards. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AFD1, DRV, AFD2 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a new version is the best choice since I see it as unlikely that an article that wad deleted in 2007 would fare any better now and if anything be less likely to survive an AFD.--67.68.21.173 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The old article looks like it's a coatrack for Scientology-related drama, and I doubt it would survive very long in the current environment. Rather than recreating under this title, I'd suggest that the nominator take User:Casliber's advice from the previous discussions and reframe the article to cover ethical issues in psychiatry, rather than re-using this rather loaded title. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse we aren't going to restore an article resoundingly deleted eight years ago when it would probably fare much worse today. It is true that the closing admin in the first AfD mentioned a "clear majority", but that wasn't the whole closing statement - the AfD was closed as delete because there was a clear majority in favour of deletion and those people had good arguments. I would echo the suggestion that if the OP does actually want an article on this topic then they try rewriting it completely at a different title, possibly one relating to ethics in psychiatry. Hut 8.5 11:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. One of the key problems here is that the basic concept of this article is irretrievably flawed - it was started back in 2007 by a Scientologist editor as a WP:COATRACK for Scientologist claims about psychiatry (and indeed was sourced to thoroughly unreliable Scientology publications). What the rest of the world thinks of as "psychiatric abuse" is already covered on Wikipedia in Political abuse of psychiatry and its subordinate articles. The term "psychiatric abuse" is however typically used by Scientologists and other fringe anti-psychiatry campaigners to portray the entire psychiatric profession as abusive. If this article was restored it would become (even more of) a collection of anecdotes united by the theme of "events that someone somewhere has called a psychiatric abuse". As this suggests, it would be hopelessly POV right from the start. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration for a discussion of a similarly inherently POV article topic. Prioryman (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the 2007 AfD. A clear consensus that the article, as written, was a gross No Original Research violation. If the IP registers and requests, allow WP:Userfication, for the purpose of improvement, moving back to mainspace and possible renomination at AfD. It is not clear that the IP intends to improve the article to make it compliant with policy. (wants to compare this to how often that same religion appears in the deleted article?) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I see no fault in the deletion process. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]