Wikipedia:Deletion review/Category:Wold Newton family members

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

The result of the debate was close of "keep" endorsed. - brenneman^{L} 11:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wold Newton family members

This category was recently nominated for deletion, and during the discussion, 14 users voted to delete the category and 4 voted to keep it. Despite the presence of a supermajority, the closing admin called it "a very close call", and declared no consensus, apparently because of couple of the keep votes were, uh, enthusiastically long-winded. I believe this was an incorrect conclusion and that the decision should be overturned and the category deleted. -

• And did the fourteen users who wanted to delete the category have the slightest clue what it was? The Deletion Police on a drunken rampage! This is appalling. Gene Ward Smith 18:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

EurekaLott 04:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Keep The admin closed based on consensus, not a super majority. Admins do not need to follow vote tallys. Considering his reasons that many of the deletes referred to just one member of a large category, it seems a reasonable decision. Voters are allowed to put down as much as they want. It is not a simple vote. It is a discussion aimed at gaining consensus. Ansell 05:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - I may have decided the other way if I'd had to make the call, but this was within reasonable admin. discretion per Ansell's observations. Metamagician3000 06:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep: it is quite obvious from reading the various delete "votes" that the contributors had not actually investigated what the category represents; in some cases it is blatantly obvious that they would not care if they had, but are simply voting on the basis of their current happy state of ignorance. How this would help Wikipedia to educate and inform readers is an interesting problem. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist This call was too close -- I'm uncomfortable overturning, but I'd like to see a relisting to get a clearer consensus. I am especially concerned that closer didn't mention in his remark the question of whether this list is promotional -- whether it uses Holmes and others to advertise for the ideas of Mr. Farmer. Xoloz 14:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

During the debate, only one person presented the idea that this category was of a promotional nature, so I do not feel there was consensus to delete on that basis. However, it should probably form part of the ongoing discussion of whether the list or the category is the better way of presenting the information contained therein. Tim! 16:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment, No Vote:And the promotional argument may have misunderstood what Farmer's work is; it's overwhelmingly a series of secondary novels, really of the same type as The Seven Percent Solution; rather than fannish essays. Septentrionalis 23:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep per Septentrionalis; this is not much different from categories like Characters in Harry Potter etc. Her Pegship 03:51, 10 May 2006 (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.