Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderation Management

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moderation Management

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A relatively small organisation and the article does not satisfactorily demonstrate its notability. See also recent DRV discussion and DRV in 2007 (where I see DGG saying the equivalent of "keep". But this year, he applied the speedy tag!) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has been speedily deleted two times. Moderation Management does not meet the notability guidelines for an organization; it has always been a small organization (200 - 500 members at most), and more noted for its failures (attacking people who reported the murder of a five-year-old girl; having its founder kill two people in a drunk driving accident) than its successes (which, as per a 2001 paper, are dubious: About 80% of members drank 4+ times a week and over half of members had 5+ drinks per drinking day, which is not moderate drinking by any reasonable stretch of the imagination) Defendingaa (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is nothing to do with success. Rathfelder (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It sure passes WP:GNG. I reviewed WP:ORG to see if there's anything I was missing there, but passes there as well (passes WP:ORGIN, passes WP:ORGCRIT, etc). Readers may want to have a look at the exchange between User:Defendingaa and myself on the topic. I'll point out that I agree with Defendingaa to the extent that WP:IDONTLIKEIT (it being Moderation Management). That being said, Moderation Management is notable and deserves a fair encyclopedic article. - Scarpy (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we’re going to keep the article, we’re going to have to make sure to keep it pretty short and make it crystal clear that this small (and, IMHO, not notable) group never worked. The only survey I have seen about its members drinking habits shows that its members, by and large, were never moderately drinking, and its founder even, at one point, admitted that “moderation management is nothing but alcoholics covering up their problem”. I am worried that this is going to be a source of numerous edit wars, when some alcoholic in denial will try and say “but this WP:MEDPOP article says that there are many people moderately drinking in Moderation Management” and then the article will drift back in to being an article endorsing pseudo-medicine which, quite bluntly, does not work Defendingaa (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defendingaa, the decision about what the article should say should be based on the balance of what independent reliable sources say, rather than on what any Wikipedia editors might think. I suspect that such sources would tend to agree with your opinion, but I haven't looked widely enough to be certain, and it's the sources that we should go with. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There’s some WP:MEDPOP nonsense out there which claims that Moderation Management works (without citing any scientific evidence supporting this conclusion); there is very little actual science on MM’s efficacy, since MM is not a notable organization. What little science we have shows MM’s members, by and large, drinking quite heavily, but the science only shows this raw data without commentary or making the obvious conclusion. Defendingaa (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is about coverage in independent reliable sources, not our agreement or disagreement with or the number of members or the degree of success of an organisation, and the Google Books and Scholar searches linked above find plenty of such coverage. Everything else is a matter of editing to ensure that the article fairly reflects the coverage in reliable sources, which on an initial look, seem to be predominantly either sceptical about this organisation's claims or downright critical. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to have more peer reviewed coverage critical about MM placed in the article if we keep it. Any pointers would be helpful. Defendingaa (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given you one pointer: just click on the word "scholar" at the top of this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Return to draft I initially listed this article, and RHaworth deleted it, as G11, for unimprovable promotionalism . Scarpy however convinced me that it was improvable, so I restored it, and moved it to draft to so it might be improved--and I began myself improving it. Bringing it back from draft to mainspace only for the purpose of deleting it is inappropriate.I think there's consensus that this is not an acceptable way to deal with an draft, because it defeats the purpose of draft space. (The DRV back in 2007 was an appeal of a A7 speedy for notability. I, along with almost everyone else , did not take promotionalism so seriously as now, & I don't think I considered then anything but notability. ), DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unambiguously meets WP:GNG. The recent speedy deletion is frankly bizarre. I find it baffling that someone looking at the article as it existed when DGG requested speedy deletion would judge that the page was exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION (per WP:G11). Colin M (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I judged on the basis of the list of requirements for participation and the list of advantages, which together made up most of the article. Such a pattern is characteristic of promotional articles. I agree I should have looked more carefully. DGG ( talk ) 00

55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep per above keeps Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.