Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. What Ali.shaila writes makes no sense, and everybody else supports deletion.  Sandstein  09:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A speedy was rejected, so we are here. needs TNT Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If my previous work got deleted then does that mean that no one can write a Wikipedia page on that issue again? I am asking this because one of my previous entries got deleted. I took care of the reasons that reviewers had made while deleting. So I re-wrote a page but just now someone is sending me rude comments and has tagged my page for deletion by stating that I can't re-write a page because my previous page on the same content got deleted.

I have added better references in the current version but I can't change the names, dates, and facts. Previous page was deleted because the references cited were not from a third party. Now all the reference are from a third party. Ali.shaila (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There are various ways in which a deletion may be undone, depending on how the deletion was done. When it was done via a PROD or G13 anyone may simply ask. When deletion is done after a consensus discussion, such as a TfD or an AfD, it is not quite that simple. A recreation that is "substantially similar" is subject to speedy deletion via G4. However, a recreation that addresses the reasons for deletion, or to which they no longer apply, is not. A recreation in user or draft space, intended in good faith to fix the issues, whatever they are, is normally not deleted via G4, even if it is technically subject to such deletion. (That is the situation here.) And Of course if a deletion discussion seems to have been closed incorrectly, or otherwise violated proper procedure, it may be discussed with the closer, and if that does not resolve things, taken to deletion review. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh copyright infringements, attack pages, hoaxes, BLP violations, and similar improper pages are not normally restored at all. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

My comments were made on another page, in another context, and addressed to another user. They should not have been copied and pasted here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I wrote a Wikipedia page (International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection)which got deleted with a comment that the references should be from a third party. So I edited the page by adding third party references and modeled the page after an already Wikipedia page on another society (National Council for Family Relations Wikipedia). After 5 minutes of publishing the new entry I started getting inappropriate comments on my new entry. One person tagged my new page for speedy deletion with a comment that my previous page was deleted so I can't write a new one. The person didn't bother to read the newly edited version.

I can NOT change fact (such as years) nor names in my article. However, I can only update the references from a third part to be transparent.

Someone read all my previous talks and comments and decide to tag the already existing page of National Council for Family Relations Wikipedia to make a logic to delete my page. This is not an appropriate action for the reviewers. Be transparent. Ali.shaila (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing substantial in reliable, independent sources. The article was full of footnote-cruft: pages that did not mention the topic of the article itself, links back to Wikipedia, and miscellaneous web-scrapings. Announcements from ISIPAR itself that happen to appear on other websites &mdash; the Nth international conference on interpersonal acceptance will be held at such-and-such a place, etc. &mdash; are not independent coverage. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)  ps. although an international society, it is based in Connecticut hence adding to the list. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, so a "redirect" to Ronald P. Rohner, the director of the society isn't on the cards? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems like a sufficiently implausible search term that a redirect wouldn't be necessary. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.