Cultural Marxism – No consensus to overturn. This is a contentious matter, so I think it will be helpful if I explain my rationale in some detail. First, I don't think this is necessarily the wrong venue for this, as the OP is putting forward what they believe to be "significant new information [that] has come to light since a deletion". The deletion discussion which took place in 2014 was closed with consensus to delete and redirect. Since it was a lengthy discussion, closed by three administrators, I would judge that outcome as representing firm consensus. Overturning this requires firm consensus in the other direction. There are some persuasive arguments put forward here in favor of undeletion, chiefly that new sources covering this topic as a conspiracy theory. In light of those, arguments that the redirect should remain because the article could promote a fringe POV must be given less weight, because the OP is explicitly about documenting this as a conspiracy theory. That said, there is enough support for the arguments that the material can be covered at Frankfurt school, and that the new sources are not particularly weighty, that we do not have the strong consensus required to overturn the original decision. This does not, of course, preclude further discussion elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Copying in part from here: "I've read the discussions that took place in 2014 that led the term Cultural Marxism to be redirected (and salted). At the time the discussion concluded, this is what the merged section looks like. Presently, it looks like this. There appear to be additional mainstream sources about the term since 2014, such as Jeet Heer writing about it in The New Republic as seen here. Since on Wikipedia, consensus can change, I would like to propose for there to once again be a standalone article about this term, which has continued to amass coverage (especially coverage more relevant than what may have existed in 2014). It seems to meet WP:NFRINGE at this point. WP:PAGEDECIDE says, "Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept," and the content seems to be getting bloated in its section under a broader topic. Judging from the additional content, especially in regard to contemporary political matters, a standalone article is warranted to talk about the term and its use historically and in today's world. I would suggest Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory for the article title, (which is not salted, but I figured judging from the three-admin closure that a preliminary discussion is warranted). It should go without saying that such an article should follow WP:FRINGE in how it handles the term."
My general assessment of sources in the last few years is that sources writing about the term exist, especially in regard to contemporary political matters, and I think readers are best served by a standalone article discussing the conspiracy theory based on such sources. The topic standing alone would also allow for more transparent collaborative editing, as opposed to being a bloated section under a more general topic. I have no illusions that the editing process will be messy, but I believe that such a process will lead to Wikipedia having a well-vetted article about the conspiracy theory. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)19:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a good way to start the discussion would be to explicitly list the sources which have emerged since the last AfD, and inviting people who participated in the various prior AfDs to evaluate them. I suggest using Talk:Cultural Marxism for this. DRV seems like the wrong venue; the general rule is that after sufficient time has gone by (four years qualifies), you don't need DRV involvement to recreate a title if the issues found at AfD are no longer valid. But, given the history here, I agree that discussion and consensus building is the way to go. DRV's just not the right place. Hmm, wait, I see that's where you started, and got pointed here. In any case, the key point is I'd like to see you explicitly list the new sources so people can evaluate them. Whether that's done here or on the talk page is of less importance. -- RoySmith(talk)21:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I assume Huon pointed me here because of WP:DRVPURPOSE #3: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". I'm listing some sources below. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)21:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copsey, Nigel; Ricardson, John E. (2015). Cultures of Post-War British Fascism. Routledge Studies in Fascism and the Far Right. Routledge. ISBN978-1-317-53936-0. The 'Cultural Marxism' thesis did not originate in Britain, nor is it invoked solely by the BNP. Since the conspiracy theory was first coined by American 'cultural conservatives', it has been re-interpreted, adopted and circulated by a wide range of right-wing individuals and political groups.
All your sources since 2014 are about the conspiracy theory. There are no new sources that did not exist when the AfD for Cultural Marxism was held. TFD (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my point is to have a standalone article about the conspiracy theory as reliable sources have covered it. Do you disagree with that? I only focused on finding mainstream coverage of that fringe topic. I'm not that familiar with the general academic concept of cultural Marxism, but my impression is that another article focusing on just that could be had. What do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)02:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn in some form. Undecided on the title and exact scope, but the general topic clearly meets WP:GNG. I must note, however, that the title "Cultural Marxism" is ambiguous and could be easily misinterpreted. I'm pretty sure Karl Marx or other major Marxists have thoughts on what a good culture looks like. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not overlook them, but wrote, "All your sources since 2014 are about the conspiracy theory." The deleted article was about "Cultural Marxism," not the conspiracy theory and since no new sources have been introduced to justify restoring it, it should remain deleted. TFD (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Four Deuces, the problem is that Cultural Marxism as an academic concept and the conspiracy theory are being collapsed together. "Cultural Marxism" redirects to a "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section. I did not list my sources to advocate for a standalone topic that is not about a conspiracy theory. Do you suggest that I just overwrite the unsalted Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory redirect? I didn't do that because everything is mixed up together here and seemed to warrant a discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)14:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, you could do that but I strongly suggest you get consensus on the Frankfurt School talk page, or it would be considered disruptive. I don't think this forum is the place for that discussion. TFD (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. One of those rare cases where three admins jointly reviewed the debate. Yes, we know that a small number of people desperately want a separate article, but the case was made and was not compelling - and new "references" from hyper-partisan sources like the Mises Institute do not change that. WP:GETOVERIT applies. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This is a clearly notable topic which is simply bursting out of Frankfurt School. Plenty of sources are given both on that page and in this DRV. The users above me seem to be endorsing the admin's decision at the time; I think this is a confusion caused by the incoherent nonsense that is WP:DRVPURPOSE, but reformulating those rules is a different discussion for a different time. In this case, DRVPURPOSE #3 applies and some of the !votes above would apply only if the nomination was alleging DRVPURPOSE #1, and they should therefore be discounted by the closer. And just to make it clear what I'm !voting for: I think the article should be recreated or sent to draft space, or at the minimum for recreation of the page to be permitted (and for this to only be overturned by a new consensus). — Bilorv(c)(talk)16:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add: I do not care whether this topic is housed at "Cultural Marxism" or "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", and I'm treating them as the same subject because I cannot see how one would view them as two separate topics. Article titles are not a DRV concern AFAIK. — Bilorv(c)(talk)16:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Cultural Marxism" was a POV fork of the Frankfurt School. The request is to restore that fork despite no new sources being provided. I suggest that before commenting editors read the AfD and explain why they think it was wrongly decided, whether because the arguments were wrong or sources were overlooked or did not exist at the time. TFD (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I count ten sources provided in this DRV. I did look at the AfD, but I didn't read it in its entirety because as I said, no-one is alleging that the closer's decision was wrong at the time. The sources given above all post-date 2014, so did not exist at the time; the AfD wasn't wrongly decided but it should now be overturned as new information has come to light (DRVPURPOSE #3). — Bilorv(c)(talk)18:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All your sources since 2014 are about the conspiracy theory, not cultural Marxism per se. There are no new sources that did not exist when the AfD for Cultural Marxism was held. "Cultural Marxism" was deleted as a POV fork of the Frankfurt School. While that does not prevent a spinoff of Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, that is an issue that should be decided on its merits at the Frankfurt School talk page. TFD (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said I wasn't making a distinction between the conspiracy theory and the topic—I don't see how you can be when the section at Frankfurt School in question is entitled "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". The nominator tried to start discussion on a talk page and was sent here, so you can see how trying to send them back is unproductive and contradictory. — Bilorv(c)(talk)09:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of the archived AfD. This is the correct forum to ask whether or not the deleted article should be restored. However, the nominator has provided no new sources about the topic of the deleted article or any explanation why it is not a POV fork of the Frankfurt School. If they want to spin off Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory into a separate article, that should be discussed at the Frankfurt School talk page. TFD (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You made me log back into my Wikipedia account after a long and rather pleasant Wikibreak just to say "retain protected redirect". It's a term with two referents. There's a rare but genuine use from certain academic sources in the 1990s and a much more common use that's framing, largely but not exclusively by crackpots of the American religious right. POLA says the redirect should point to where we cover the framing. The closer will, I hope, consider why there's been so much pressure over the years to allow a Wikipedia article that takes the term seriously... you can bet it's got nothing to do with the occasional academic use from the 1990s.—S MarshallT/C01:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"You made me..." Sorry! :( The goal of the discussion was to have a standalone article discussing the conspiracy theory in a serious-minded manner, like Wikipedia has tackled other conspiracy theories. "Cultural Marxism" redirecting to a conspiracy-theory-titled section where both the academic concept and the conspiracy theory are discussed seem messy. The conspiracy theory should be separated out per WP:PAGEDECIDE. I have no interest in peddling the conspiracy theory and would want an article about it treated seriously. The growing mainstream coverage tells me that Wikipedia should structure its summary of such content better, in this case having a standalone article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)14:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse in examining the sources presented here, I see nothing substantively "new" just various iterations/reiterations of what existed in 2014, the Frankfurt School article is the needed context -- sure, trim/streamline/emendation of the section may be of benefit to readers, but that's just, say the same things shorter and clearer (even adjust sourcing), not longer. I specifically read with interest the Wikipedia editor Blackford's critique of Wikipedia (in which he identifies himself as opposing the 2014 decision in Wikipedia as a Wikipedia editor), but from a substantive point, it is difficult go along with that critique because his critique, mistakenly in my view, begins with "deleting" cultural marxism, for what was actually in effect Wikipedia merging/redirecting/re-organizing, and then the Blackford critique performs a similar merging, that is, discussing the academic, while also discussing the connections, etc., to fringe/populist use, largely in the same vein as Wikipedia does, now - so in the end, for me, it reinforces the current structuring (which does the same thing). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Baggalútur – The result was overturn speedy deletion. There is a consensus that G12 was applied in error, and G11 is at least debateable. No prejudice to listing the article at AfD, as suggested by several editors. – Joe (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
See also previous discussion at the deleting admin's discussion page. This article was speedily deleted citing WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#G12. To quote myself from the other discussion: "Doesn't look like a copyvio to me, as the potential "sources" apparently have taken the text from Wikipedia, not the other way round. I think you know that it's very common that text from Wikipedia articles that have been around for some years is taken for sites such as Google's Play Store. E.g. the first "source" (as mentioned above) explicitly states this, and also if you look e.g. at the "ismus" site, they state "From a Wikipeida-page on Baggalutur" as their source. So I think we can pretty definitely rule out WP:CSD#G12. This is a years-old article and the text has ben used by other websites in the meantime, a common case. What remains is WP:CSD#G11. And though one could say that the article focuses a lot on the successes of the band, I think this is something we often see in smaller articles in an attempt to emphasize notability, so the article doesn't get deleted as non-notable. I still don't think it's extremely promotional." And in any case I find it a bit strange to speedily delete an article that has been around for years; I think in German-language Wikipedia (where I'm more active than here), we would have asked for a regular deletion request. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. I'm not seeing the WP:G12. The text does indeed appear in many music sites (Ismus, Google Play Music, Discogs, etc), but all of those attribute the source back to us. The WP:G11 is more of a judgement call, but I don't see the text as being so irreparably promotional as to trigger G11. The requirements for G11 use strong language: unambiguous ... exclusively promotional ... fundamentally rewritten. The text could use improving, but I don't see it meeting that high bar. As for notability, that's for AfD to consider. -- RoySmith(talk)14:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn clearly not a copyvio of that source as the link attributes Wikipedia as the source of the information. G11 is much more arguable but if a few sentences were trimmed I think it would be just about acceptable. If they really have topped the Icelandic music chart as claimed then they would presumably meet WP:NMUSIC. Hut 8.517:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore content: Clearly the speedy deletion is not justified on both grounds cited in the deletion (copyright violation and promotional content). Restore article and tone down content (if necessary) leaving basic info and the discography list as this is a very notable Icelandic band werldwayd (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Speedy deletion should be uncontroversial; when reasonable doubts about applicability arise, there is no harm in restoring and allowing anyone who wishes to seek deletion to do so at afd. That aside, G12 has been shown to be inapplicable in this case and G11 is subjective. — Godsy (TALKCONT)05:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Unbox Therapy – Wrong venue. This is an unprotection request; it should have been made first to the protecting admin, and if that is not possible, to WP:RFPP. I am personally willing to grant this, but please ask BethNaught, who protected this, first. This venue is for requesting the reversal of an XfD discussion; and that is not what you are asking for. Vanamonde (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This page was deleted and can't be re-created. However, there are clearly now multiple major reliable sources providing substantial coverage of both YouTube channel, and the person Lewis Hilsenteger (which is also deleted and protected). For example The Toronto Star, The Huffington Post, Global News, AP/CTV. He ranked #5 Tech/Business social influencer by Forbes. There's a large amount of relevant hits in Google Web and News searches (going by channel or personal name), where he's both the subject and and source for articles. Perhaps the articles previously written didn't cite enough sources,
but that's not a good reason to delete an article and prevent re-creation. Rob (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hard call here. Sources are mostly moderate (looked like one good one). Draft creator blocked as a sock. I'd want to see what the nom thinks are the best few sources. Honestly the draft seems pretty fair and balanced and certainly wasn't a puff piece. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the The Toronto Star source is perfectly sufficient to justify creation of a new article. The article should be re-started as a simple mini-stub, that can be expanded after. I didn't see the draft before posting here. A number of sources in the draft seem inadequate, especially in the iPhone section, which could be a potential BLP violation. --Rob (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was, IMO, the only good source. It's really quite good where the only issue with one of being local (which I largely don't worry about especially in such a large market). But there isn't much after that. Could you identify the best 2 or 3 sources after that? Hobit (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The best sources are the ones I gave in my original post. I would say the Toronto Star counts as a national source. I also think if you look at the vast number of Google hits, there are a lot of articles by lessor known online-only publications, which are independent, and provide substantial coverage. For example Polygon. Also, there is a huge amount of coverage over the whole "iPhone bending" or "bendgate" thing. While not specifically about him, he does play a central role in the story according to sources like Business Insider. Bendgate also got coverage from The Telegraph. So while personal profiles of the Lewis Hilsenteger seem to be limited to national sources, the YouTube channel does get it's fair share of international coverage. Unfortunately, it will take a long time to go through the many sources, to pick what to include. I could create the article at Lewis Hilsenteger, but it seems like Unbox Therapy is most appropriate title of the article, since that's what's most famous. Maybe we don't have enough to really have a good biography, but we easily have more than enough coverage for an article about the YouTube channel. -Rob (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not recreate. I don't understand Hobit's statement, Draft creator blocked as a sock. I think you're talking about Personale, who edited the draft, but didn't create it. In any case, looking at Rob's four sources, they're all largely interviews, which we downweight for WP:N purposes. -- RoySmith(talk)13:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt and allow recreation using Draft:Unbox Therapy without prejudice against a new AfD. The DRV initiator is an established editor who is asking in good faith for unsalting and allowing recreation. Draft:Unbox Therapy is a balanced article.
Had the article not been salted, any editor could have moved Draft:Unbox Therapy to Unbox Therapy and {{db-repost}} would not have applied owing to the new sources and new content.
