| Revision as of 09:09, 23 February 2009 editXasodfuih (talk | contribs)4,315 editsm →Category:Fad diet: clarify← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:12, 23 February 2009 edit undoStifle (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators84,094 edits →Category:Fad dietNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| This cat has been speedily deleted (G4) based on the ] discussion of the similar category where the main argument was "this category is not ]". The discussion did not seem to include any science/medical editors. Since ] clearly states that these diets are often unscientific, and the ArbCom has ruled that ] is okay, I am asking for this decision to be reviewed as the closing admin has declined to undelete. I think it's feasible to populate this category from reliable sources. For instance the ] has a list of fad diets . So, I'm invoking '''principle 3''', i.e. new information not previously discussed. ] (]) 09:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | This cat has been speedily deleted (G4) based on the ] discussion of the similar category where the main argument was "this category is not ]". The discussion did not seem to include any science/medical editors. Since ] clearly states that these diets are often unscientific, and the ArbCom has ruled that ] is okay, I am asking for this decision to be reviewed as the closing admin has declined to undelete. I think it's feasible to populate this category from reliable sources. For instance the ] has a list of fad diets . So, I'm invoking '''principle 3''', i.e. new information not previously discussed. ] (]) 09:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep deleted''', seems to me like an attempt to make an end run around the consensus at the CFD. ArbCom doesn't have jurisdiction on content issues. ] (]) 09:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:12, 23 February 2009
| < February 22 | Deletion review archives: 2009 February | February 24 > |
|---|
23 February 2009
Category:Fad diet
This cat has been speedily deleted (G4) based on the discussion discussion of the similar category where the main argument was "this category is not NPOV". The discussion did not seem to include any science/medical editors. Since Fad diet clearly states that these diets are often unscientific, and the ArbCom has ruled that Category:Pseudoscience is okay, I am asking for this decision to be reviewed as the closing admin has declined to undelete. I think it's feasible to populate this category from reliable sources. For instance the American Dietetic Association has a list of fad diets here. So, I'm invoking principle 3, i.e. new information not previously discussed. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, seems to me like an attempt to make an end run around the consensus at the CFD. ArbCom doesn't have jurisdiction on content issues. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)