Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 21

Food Testing Strips (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON - I made all the recommended changes. An Encyclopedia is for people to find that something exists and so should wikipedia. With the constant outbreak of E.coli, and other food borne illnesses please need to know. I made the article as neutral as possible I followed the recommended changes from suggestions from others 24.82.95.162 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)--24.82.95.162 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Close DRV, run an AfD It has a PROD tag on it but hasn't been deleted yet, and it isn't speedyable either. An Afd should sort this out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• I have removed the prod notice as the article doesn't look like spam or advertising to me. Brandon97 01:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Non-fiction outdoors writers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

• Overturn and restore I wasn't involved in this debate, but it on the same page as the item below, and it is another clear cut case of an admin decision that did not reflect consensus, and no attempt was made to explain why the closer felt able to act without consensus. Seeing two of these case from different admins on the same page is alarming. Do we have a major problem of admins acting without consensus? Do we need to review every day's closures for such items, and if we do, will we find that two non-consensual closures a day is normal? Haddiscoe 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as it seems quite reasonable given the arguments. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not relevant whether you happen to think it was reasonable, only whether the closer acted in accordance with the requirement that an action must be based on consensus. Brandon97 20:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Consensus is based on debate, policy and guidelines. It certainly doesn't turn on counting votes. To save typing, you can reuse this as the answer to your point in the next debate as well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close and close this. Nothing was deleted, no deletion to review. People can discuss the merge among themselves, maybe an RfC would help esablish consensus, for what it's worth I agree with the merge proponents but that is irrelevant here. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This category is being deleted. Merger is deletion. Are you saying that it is never permissible to review a "merge" closure? If so, why do you think that is reasonable, and where is the policy? Brandon97 20:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, merger is not deletion. A merged article is not deleted, the contents are merged. A merged category loses o articles and no encyclopaedic content. Categories are just a navigational aid, merging does not mean that someone is denied their birthright or something, it just means there is more utility in combining articles in a slightly different way. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Of course merger is deletion. There was a category, and now there isn't. Those who wanted to have the category had it, now they have nothing. If you don't care about categories, you could always stop wasting your time on them. Brandon97 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merger is deletion when the category is emptied into another and then deleted! Splash - tk 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well if that is the problem, how about we replace the page with a {{categoryredirect}}? >Radiant< 07:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore There was no consensus to delete. Brandon97 20:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Which is probably why nothing was deleted at any point. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• The category existed, and now it is a red link. That is deletion. Brandon97 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• That is factually incorrect. Splash - tk 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well if that is the problem, how about we replace the page with a {{categoryredirect}}? >Radiant< 07:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse close As the closing admin, given the fact that only one editor made any real attempt to argue against the merger, I believe that reasonable consensus was established (the issue of DRV dealing with mergers aside).

Xdamr^talk 23:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• The discussion may have been brief, but actually the arguments for the distinctive nature of this genre were made in more detail than the opposing case. It is balderdash to suggest that there was a consensus. Brandon97 01:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn the merge and restore this category. There was absolutely no consensus for this merge, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_13#Category:Non-fiction_outdoors_writers. Xdamr ignored the two people who stated "keep", even though their reasoning was entirely correct. Many authors who are "non-fiction outdoors writers" are NOT nature writers. For example, Edward LaChapelle (a biography I created) wrote books on avalanche science and glaciers, but this is clearly NOT in any way considered "nature writing" by those who are familiar with both genres. Now, LaChapelle has been misclassified by the category merge.
  Please reverse this very erroneous decision. I am disappointed that Xdamr chose to clearly ignore the lack of consensus for a merge, and proceeded to declare that "The result of the debate was Merge". I see no such result in that debate. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 23:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore There was no consensus for this outcome, and it will lead to incorrect categorization. If the closer thought consensus was moving that way, he could and should have registered his own support for it, and kept the discussion open for another five days. AshbyJnr 01:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist I have a lot of sympathy for the admin because I thought the arguments for keeping were not convincing; I'd read this one a couple of times and held off weighing in to see how the arguments developed. But, I don't see consensus having been achieved. Indeed, supporters of "keep" were still weighing in and responding, and there was no rush of "deletes" showing that those advocating deletion had convinced a broader group. I think this one should have either been closed as "no consensus" or left open; the closing admin might have helped tip the scales by weighing in on substance and letting someone else close. A Musing 09:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't share your degree of sympathy for Xdamr, especially as he is trying to defend an erroneous call instead of simply admitting error and quickly fixing the situation. Then I would feel much more sympathetic. It is obvious that there was no clear consensus in the CfD, even just blindly counting votes, it was 2 keep and 2 merge (and 1 comment which was almost a keep) = no consensus. Why be in a rush to merge? The status quo prior to merge was in no way harmful to Wikipedia, so just leave it and relist the CfD if necessary. I think in cases like this, it is also important to use some good judgement and common sense, because the "keep" arguments were correct. If you have no knowledge about the areas under consideration, it is best to leave categorization decisions to those who do understand the subject. The encyclopedia is best served when knowledgeable people make important decisions like deletion, merging, etc.
    If you don't know that these are in fact two discernibly separate categories (which to me is obvious based on my personal knowledge and interests), then just leave it alone and let someone else who knows better handle it. I can give so many examples of non-fiction outdoors writers who are not nature writers. Take the author of a mountaineering guidebook or a backcountry skiing guidebook. They clearly fit the category "non-fiction outdoors writers" and are also obviously not "nature writers" in any sense of that term. A little knowledge and a few insightful examples easily clarify the distinction. If you look at Category:Nature_writers right now, the list of people dumped in at the bottom following the merge is just nonsensical, so many of them are not at all nature writers (but they are non-fiction outdoors writers). I'm quite sorry I missed this CfD, but I was too busy spending my Wiki time on actually writing articles and managing a large WikiProject. Seeing what happened in this case, I will make an effort to again patrol CfD more regularly. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 19:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is another case where giving notice to an appropriate wikiproject would have been helpful to develop the argument and come to a good result.A Musing 19:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Here is where the difficulties inherent in determining consensus emerge; far from there being a 2-2 split, my reading of the debate led me to conclude that there was a 3-1 consensus to merge (including nominator and excluding comments which did not seem to particularly engage with the debate). In retrospect that may be right or it may be wrong, but please assume a little good faith.

Xdamr^talk 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Xdamr, I have assumed plenty of good faith, and have certainly never even implied that you acted in bad faith, so no need for you to bring up WP:AGF. But I still believe that you made an error in closing the CfD as a merge, and the discussion here has cemented this view (that your closing was not correct) as a widely held consensus now. More importantly, I hope you will take to heart my constructive comments above, about (1) maintaining the status quo when doing so causes no harm and consensus is not fully certain; (2) sticking to areas in which you are knowledgeable and leaving important categorization decisions (e.g. closing that CfD) to those who do understand the subject under consideration. I think Wikipedia would benefit if people followed these 2 simple precepts a little more often.
  And now that consensus is finally obvious, I am still disappointed that you feel the need to defend your actions instead of fixing the situation. No one cares that you closed one CfD wrongly, but as the closing admin you are the most appropriate person to stop this DRV, recreate the category, and revert the category changes to all of those articles. Why not do that instead of mounting an unnecessary defense of your actions? This isn't a courtroom, it's an encyclopedia, and fixing this issue quickly and without further waste of time/effort commenting here would improve that encyclopedia. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 22:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider that as a participant in this discussion and as the closing admin whose actions are in question it would be most improper for me to close this DRV. --Xdamr^talk 22:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"as the closing admin whose actions are in question" ... please understand, Xdamr, you are not on trial. It would only be improper if you closed this in favor of upholding your earlier decision. It would certainly not be improper and no one will mind if you quickly close it in favor of overturning your earlier decision. Please, go ahead and do so, and restore the category and those articles to their prior version. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 22:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore There was clearly no consensus. Hawkestone 09:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus. Tim! 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. Having just read the articles on Outdoor literature and Nature writing, it seems to me that the contributions to this debate were of rather poor quality. The nomination looks rather rushed, and placing the "merge" recommendation at the end of the text my have led some readers to fail to count it; but even with that included, it's a 3-2 split. I think that Xdamr might have had a point in ignoring the less verbose "keep" !vote if the other arguments had been better developed, but they weren't (only one editor showed any sign of having read the relevant articles). This seems to me a fairly clear "no consensus" ... and if I had closed it, I'd have tempted to admonish the participants for not being a little more thorough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore No consensus; valid category. Postlebury 07:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, reasonable close. Two people suggested there was a difference but were unable to explain what it was. It seems that every part of this cat that doesn't overlap with "Nature writers" instead overlaps with "Travel writers". >Radiant< 07:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Radiant, the parts that don't overlap "Nature writers" do not necessarily overlap "Travel writers" either. Per the examples I offered above, the author of a mountaineering guidebook or a backcountry skiing guidebook is most definitely not a travel writer or a nature writer, but they are both "non-fiction outdoors writers". Need other examples? Please take a look at Category:Nature_writers right now: Conrad Anker, Jon Krakauer, Edward LaChapelle, etc., none of them are either travel or nature writers, but they are all non-fiction outdoors writers. You are provably incorrect in your assertion about the overlap.
    Why are you and Xdamr both so obstinately defending your actions, but then you make an easily disproved statement like the one above? It's just emphasizing the increasingly evident fact that you nominated this category for CfD (in good faith, I'm sure) with minimal real knowledge about its purpose and contents. Why did you do so? Is that the right way to improve the encyclopedia, by going around changing things that you know little or nothing about, even if you mean well and are acting in good faith? This is very strange and counterproductive behavior. Please, I'll ask nicely again, at least consider leaving categorization decisions to those with actual knowledge about the articles and subjects in question. Everyone will benefit and be happier. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 06:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, stating that people who disagree with you don't know what they're talking about is surely going to resolve things. >Radiant< 07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Radiant, that's a very sarcastic comment. If you'd prefer not to respond to my questioning why you CfD'd this, that's your choice, but please don't twist my words. I didn't say anything about you based on your disagreement with my views. I just tried to point out that your assertion about the overlap is readily shown to be false (irrespective of my agreeing or disagreeing with it), which therefore implies a lack of knowledge about the subject. I'm sorry if you take offense at my comments (both above and here), but pointing out arguments which are not correct is one way of resolving things by moving towards a just conclusion instead of an erroneous one. I have tried to be as civil and fair as possible while attempting to elucidate the error in your assertion. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 09:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Relist - The discussion never really reached a real consensus. If just strictly counting votes, then merging was appropriate, although marginally. Reading the comments, it is not clear whether people agreed that these were two separate topics or one specific topic. I would say that Xdamr should not be faulted for the decision to close this as "merge", but the category should be discussed further. Dr. Submillimeter 08:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Medical writers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

• Overturn and restore There wasn't even a semblance of a consensus to delete this category. The first three users to contribute wanted it deleted, but they were followed up by three who did not. Not only was there no consensus to delete, but the discussion was moving in favour of retention. The closing admin made no attempt to justify his non-consensual decision. Haddiscoe 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The argument for deletion was the category was a narrow intersection, although that argument wasn't accepted by the DRV nominator. The CFD itself shows clearly that there was confusion as to the purpose of the category. Haddiscoe was alone in seeing it as a example of genre writing (a category for "people who write about medicine", whoever they may be), whereas other people who favoured keeping it did so on the basis that it was to contain "writers who practice or work in medical fields", but were "more notable for writing". Since everyone but Haddiscoe accepted the intersection argument as the basis of discussion, the debate was closed on that same basis. Haddiscoe's point is dealt with by the existence of a writers by genre subcategory, woefully underpopulated, called Category:Health and wellness writers. It may not be a very euphonious name, but it is fairly clear, unlike the ambivalent Category:Medical writers. So, narrow, subjective, ambivalent. That seems like a solid basis for not keeping the category. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There was no consensus to delete. My words are being misinterpreted and misused by Angus McLellan. The point I was intending to make is that the selection of articles in the category showed unambiguosly that it was a valid category and was being well used, in refutation of inference that there could not be any proper usage. Also, I do not accept the intersection argument as the basis for the discussion, and I don't see how Angus can know what was going on in the minds of everyone else involved in the discussion. There are people who are notable for their medical writing, and that is all that is needed for retention of the category. Brandon97 20:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I can only base decisions on reading the CFD. Re-reading for the umpteenth time, I remain at a loss to see how "people more notable for their writing than for their medical practice" can be anything other than a trivial intersection of "medical people" and "writing people" with "notable" adding an element of subjectivity. If you want intersects, add your voice to those shouting for Wikipedia:Category intersection. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I am completely unable to understand how you can apparently seriously think that you are implementing consensus, when it is as clear as daylight that you are not. You might as well be arguing that blue is red or that the Pope is a Muslim for all the sense your interpretation of the discussion makes - and at first you didn't even think an explanation was required! This is not a "category intersect" it is a wholly valid category like thousands of others, and for what it is worth (as it is completely irrelevant) I am opposed to Wikipedia:Category intersection. Brandon97 01:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore There was no consensus for this outcome. If the closer thought consensus was moving that way, he could and should have registered his own support for it, and kept the discussion open for another five days. AshbyJnr 01:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I don't think there was real consensus about the meaning of the category, and it seems that a renaming would have clarified things better than a deletion.DGG 02:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There was clearly no consensus. Hawkestone 09:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist I don't see there as being consensus; as in the one above, it could have been left open, the admin could have weighed in to tip the balance, or it could have been closed as no consensus. If the consensus was so clear, why weren't more people weighing in on it? Like me, they were probably passing it by because they weren't convinced either way.A Musing 09:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus. Tim! 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore No consensus to delete. Postlebury 07:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

John Bambenek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Several high profile news appearances and articles published. Widely read syndicated columnist, well-known information security researcher, and published author. Zulu13 16:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion upon review of previous AfD. I've been in the news. I have more than fifty published articles, not counting things I wrote for newspaper. That doesn't mean I deserve a Wikipedia article. This isn't just about the notability either. It's about the process. If it's not a vanity article, eventually a clearly appropriate article might appear, but for now, leave it alone. Doczilla 17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Here is the 2nd AFD which resulted in the deletion. It appears, in trying to wade through the mass of noise there, that the closing admin correctly interpreted the discussion and the relevant policies and guidelines in making the decision to delete. I also note that the AFD was closed several weeks ago; is there no statute of limitations for DRV? Otto4711 17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. DRV nominations have to either have new information or demonstrate why consensus was interpreted incorrectly. This just restates the arguments. -Amarkov moo! 17:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Women television writers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

CFD was closed as "merge", when the balance of the discussion was "no consensus". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to raise the issue with the closing admin (Radiant!) on his talk page, but the discussion was deleted because Radiant objected to some of the issues raised, so I have now restored it on my talk page. Interested editors may also want to read a review by BenAveling of the closure, at User_talk:Radiant!#How_I_would_have_closed_it User_talk:Radiant!#How_I_would_have_closed_it., in which Ben recommended bringing this to DRV.

Please note that I will now place a notice that this DRV is underway to all the participants in the original CFD, plus the Radiant (as closing admin), and BenAveling (as reviewer). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Overcategorization with a clear bias. Brandon97 11:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Brandon97, please read Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which states "Concerns about the POV status of a particular category must be weighed against the fact that not having such a category may also be a potentially unacceptable POV. Your personal feelings should not enter into the matter — if a category meets the criteria defined above, then it is permitted, and if the category does not meet the criteria, then it is not permitted. This is the only way in which the myriad points of view on the matter can realistically be reconciled into a relatively neutral position." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If we have categories for every phony subject created by left-wing academics to nourish their grudges, we will actually have a consistently biased position. The people who create these fields of study only represent a small slice of society, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral representation of society as a whole. It is not of course, it has been infiltrated by left-liberal biases, but we should do all we can to keep them to a miminum before it is robbed of its little remaining credibility. Brandon97 01:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the question here is not whether one approves or disapproves of the category - that was what the discussion was for. It is simply whether the closure reflects the discussion. It appears clear to me that there was not consensus to merge, and I think it will be similarly clear to anyone who reads this carefully; my own statement here, regretably, was least clear, because I said "Keep or Merge", though put forth an argument to keep (not to merge). Likeiwse, there are two other "Keep. or, if it must be merged...", which the closing admin appears to have read as Merge. I ask that those reviewing this read through and see if they really think "there is an obvious consensus to merge." Also, please, everyone, I understand some frustration given the repeated nominations of categories involving women writers, but let's just stick to whether the close occurred properly here. It's not a place to discussion "deletion", "bias", whether we like or dislike these categories, or anything else. A Musing 12:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endore deletion; suggest a freeze on the creation of subcategories of Category:Women writers and a freeze on WP:CFD nominations for existing subcategories of Category:Women writers; suggest that User:Radiant!, User:BrownHairedGirl, User:scribblingwoman, and anyone else all go work on articles about gender-neutral things and be happy instead of fighting about these categories - The debates on these categories at WP:CFD have been endless. I see no clear consensus to keep or delete these categories, but I also see no clear consensus to continue creating more of these categories. More debate will not solve the issue, and it is beginning to alienate other users. I suggest a moratorium on both creating these categories and nominating them for deletion, and I suggest that everybody should just try to be friends. Dr. Submillimeter 12:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Dr S, did you read the above section Commenting in a deletion review? It says "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate."
    You say that you see no consensus to delete, so why do you recommend endorsing deletion??????? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I am just suggesting leaving things as they currently exist now and taking a moratorium on all actions related to these categories (including restoring this category). No additional categories get deleted, and no additional categories get created. I am just tired of these endless debates on these categories, and I do no see additional debate as solving anything. Dr. Submillimeter 13:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Response to Comment Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, Dr. S has a fine idea there. A 30 or 60 day moratorium (or take whatever else you want for a length) with the focus on working on resolving issues and talking through category structures sounds like a fine idea. It wouldn't surprise me if after discussion on talk pages, without the threat of a piecemeal review for deletion, folks came back to here and said, let's focus the categories in X way, we don't need these subcats, we do need those subcats, etc. Yes, it's a bit of a bold, out of line proposal, and off-topic for this forum, but still a good idea. Of course, the suggestion that we all work on "gender neutral" articles reveals a bit of a bias (and it's kind of tough - most of the people I've written about have a gender!), and perhaps the time should be spent instead figuring out how to usefully resolve these issues without the constant nominations for deletion.A Musing 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: I was one of the people who said, "keep, or if it must be merged, merge with Category:Women screenwriters," because I was concerned that some had argued for a merge with Category:Television writers. My arguments, however, were all to keep. The discussion as a whole reached no clear consensus. Re. Dr. Submillimeter's comments: the categories exist and so they can be used; that much seems clear. Though I would certainly support a moratorium on further nominations for deletion! — scribblingwoman 12:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't read his proposal as saying we shouldn't use the ones that exist, just that more shouldn't be created. For example, there has been some discussion on the talk pages as to whether the appropriate trees should be based on language (e.g., Arabic, French, Hindi) or nationality (Egyptian, French, Indian); I tend more toward the language side myself but the current tree is based on national breakdowns. Under this moratorium, I'd still expect to tag an entry appropriately as I came across it, using the current categories, but I wouldn't go creating a tree by language. I might discuss it and at the end of the moratorium, if we've got talk page consensus, would look to create it. If we decided we needed a new or different national subcategory (e.g., there is not current a "Korean women writers" category in the tree by country), the appropriate process for change would then be followed. Should this discussion be taken to the talk pages rather than held here?A Musing 16:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure the breakdown of the votes given on Radiants talk was misleading, several of the keeps were keep or merge (sometime if must), as were some of the deletes. The result of merge seems fine. --pgk 14:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Perhaps you missed my comment while you were posting yours? I said that my vote was a "keep" vote, as should have been clear from reading the accompanying comments. — scribblingwoman 14:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I read the original comments as the closer did. Your comment indicated that at a push you would accept a merge. I'm not going to consider people who want to change their mind or add to their original comment in examining if the process (which doesn't have the benefit of that) was followed. From the original comments it appears that a merge was an acceptable outcome to most (even if not their first choice). --pgk 17:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Surely saying that a merge might be acceptable "at a push," means that it is a clear second choice? In other words, the vote is for keep?— scribblingwoman 18:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Except it isn't a vote. Yes I read it as a clear second choice, when considering the overall picture the apparent outcome acceptable to most was not the first choice of either delete or keep advocates, at that point contemplating second choices merge appears as an acceptable outcome. --pgk 19:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. The closing admin deleted discussion of the issue from his tall page? That was enough to arouse interest. Sure enough, the close was out of order. Herostratus 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't want to comment on the specific case, but following on from two cases I have posted above, this closure suggests that we are currently experiencing a totally unacceptable level of closures that ignore consensus. Haddiscoe 16:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The women screenwriters cat was an insufficiently distinct subcategory of Category:Women writers. No screenwriter writes only screenplays. They all write books, articles, ads, and more. Doczilla 17:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: As stated above, this discussion is solely to evaluate the closure of the last discussion, not the discussion itself. If editors will insist on addressing the larger issues, could I respectfully request that before commenting they please read all the recent discussions on gendered writing categories (#1; #2; #3; #4; #5; #6; #7; and #8; and possibly these informal discussions: #9; #10, #11), Category:Women writers itself; the head article for the category, as well as the appropriate wiki policy (Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality), and then, please, that they refer to these discussions and the policy, explicitly, in their responses? Thanks. — scribblingwoman 18:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but an admin making a ruling when there may have been no consensus isn't a good reason for deletion review. CfD is not a vote. The admin can rule based on the case presented. If we're talking about procedure only, there's no good reason for this deletion review. Doczilla 05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely what deletion review is here for. Absent a policy violation, the admin ought to be determining whether or not consensus exists, not substituting his own judgment for that of the participating editors. Likewise, the purpose of this discussion is not to cast votes on whether you like the outcome or not, but solely to examine whether consensus did indeed exist. While there is a need to weigh different statements, to discount some arguments, etc., the fundamental question is whether consensus existed and revisiting that in this forum is perfectly appropriate. If there was a judgment call in determining consensus, that call can both be made and challenged in good faith.A Musing 09:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I tire of these debates. Sadly, they are being decided on personal opinion rather than on wikipolicy which states that a category can be created if it is legitimate field of scholarly study, which women writers (of all genres) are (this has been amply demonstrated throughout these discussions). It is immaterial whether or not one agrees that women should be studied in this way - they are and this should be reflected in wikipedia. Again, I ask the editors and administrators to think of wikipedia's reputation. If we claim to be relying on reliable sources for articles but then discount them for other parts of the encyclopedia, we look rather silly. Also, the various arguments about women screenwriters always writing in other genres is irrelevant, even if it were true. The point of categories is to help one search for small segments of a population. Many poets also wrote prose (in fact, most did), but that does not mean that we do not have various poet categories; sometimes a user is only interested in them as poets just as a user might only be interested in people as "screenwriters" or "television writers." It seems to me that the most useful categories are getting deleted and totally unhelpful categories such as "Novels by Jane Austen," are retained. The discussion on this category was far from reaching a consensus and the majority of the well-supported arguments were on the "retain" side, therefore the "delete" was inappropriate and seems to reflect either a personal opinion or a personal animosity. Awadewit 18:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There are many things which are properly covered in Wikipedia in articles, but do not have categories. An article on women television writers can refer to the counterview that the subject should not be studied, but the category endorses the pro point-of-view, thus breaching Wikipedia:Neutrality. Brandon97 01:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I have seen strange versions of "neutrality before", but a bald statement that "the subject should not be studied" is quite chilling. This goes far beyond categorisation issues or censorship of publication, and takes us into the realm of thoughtcrime. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Try something else. I have no opinion on this particular debate, but the broader issue of subcategorising women writers, or not, needs to be addressed. CFD isn't particularly well-suited to such a broad debate. Perhaps an RFC would be helpful. My feeling is that, in general, there are more WP:IHATEIT arguments than WP:ILIKEIT ones. The keep arguments had substantial evidence; the merge and delete ones had WP:OCAT. I know which I prefer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The best "something else" I've heard is Dr. S's suggestion.A Musing 09:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two big problems problem with Dr S's suggestion:

1. it involves breaching DRV practice by upholding deletion of a category despite his agreement that there was no consensus for deletion, which drives a coach and horses through our procedures
2. It involves suspending an existing guideline because a small but vocal minority of editors have chosen to reject it, some of them for overtly political reasons (see for example Brandon97's comment above about "phony subject created by left-wing academics to nourish their grudges"). If we go down that route, what next? A ban on creating religious categories because some atheists regard religion as a "phony subject created by some irrational people"?

The bottom line here for me is simply that we have a guideline in place, at WP:CATGRS, and we need to start using it, and to explicitly ignore !votes at CFD based on its rejection. There are some editors who are active in CfD who argue for deletion of each and every gendered category. This has produced some bizarre results: singers by gender was kept at CFD, but the gendered categories for actors were deleted, even though the acting profession's own award systems explicitly acknowledge that this a a gendered profession.

I'm not sure that I fully understand what's behind this (and I don't think that overtly political positions such as Brandon's are shared by all of those who oppose all gendered categories), the extent of a fundamental hostility to gendered categories is becoming deeply disruptive, and it prevents us from having any meaningful discussions about when gendered categories are appropriate. I'm sure that Dr S's proposed moratorium is well-intentioned, but it doesn't actually resolve anything ... and the effect of it is to say that because there no consensus to delete, we should instead ban creation. I'm sorry, but that's getting things back-to-front. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with BrownHairedGirl, both that the suggestion was no doubt well-intentioned, and that it is flawed. The idea of a moratorium on calls for deletion, on the other hand, is HUGELY tempting. It's been over ten straight days, now, of one thing or another with these women writer categories. — scribblingwoman 21:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Semantic quibbling: I know of no women televisions. If I did know any wome televisions, I'd be willing to bet none of them would be writers. Or are these women who write televisions? Guy (Help!) 19:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer "women teleplay writers" which might be more accurate but perhaps less intuitive? Awadewit 19:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The issue is, are the entries in this category simply there because they are female or because they have made a notable contribution that is uniquely due to their being female? Category names are suppose to clearly indicate what the members of this category located there are for. The current name implies that being female is the only criteria. The problem with Category:Women writers and the sub categories is that they are categories in search of a unique purpose. The current names leave them open to all females. It is far better to delete and allow the proponents to create categories with names that reflect the uniqueness of the membership of those new categories without leaving them open to inclusion of all females which would be gender over classification. Vegaswikian 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, consensus was not achieved on which category to merge it in, thus no consensus.--Rayc 21:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and postpone further discussion for several months, as suggested by Dr.S. Several of the eds. above seem to view this as political question one way or the other; I don't. It should be decided on the basis of the usefulness and appropriateness of the category, and not on whether one approves of feminism.DGG 03:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Its good to see someone else endorsing Dr. S's suggestion. Is there an enforceable way to put this one into place?A Musing 09:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore, at least for now, and seek mediation. I am prepared to mediate this, or try WP:MEDCABAL. I believe an honest mistake has been made. In my assessment, there was no clear weight of numbers, nor clear weight of argument. I don't know if the category should be kept or not, but I don't think that a compelling case either way was presented, or perhaps, could have been presented, given the fluid format of XFD and the complexity of the issues. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus. Tim! 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse self, because 9 out of 14 participants suggested merging in their comment. Furthermore, rather than getting mediation between two or three people here, I'd suggest seeking community-wide input (e.g. Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality) to prevent this issue from coming up again and again. >Radiant< 07:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support the upmerge to Category:Women screenwriters In my reasoning I am assuming that Category:Women writers and its subcategory Category:Women writers by format are not likely to be deleted in the near future. Given that assumption, I support the upmerge of Category:Women television writers to Category:Women screenwriters for a couple of reasons. First, the number of article links in that category is less than a page worth, so there doesn't appear to be a pressing need to subdivide them further to reduce category size. Second, this keeps the category consistent with its related genderless cousin Category:Screenwriters, which does not distinguish between "film screenwriters" and "television screenwriters". Lastly note that there is likely to be a fair amount of overlap between film and television screenwriter subcategories, since many of the screenwriters write for both mediums. Thus the upmerge is appropriate as it keeps "Women screenwriters" more consistent with "Screenwriters" and the subdivision was not actually needed for size reduction. Dugwiki 16:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dug, there is a Category:Television writers separate from Category:Screenwriters subcategorizing Category:Writers by format; while I didn't create these, I believe there was a very conscious effort to mimic the categories in the larger category. Also, part of why there aren't many in here at this point is that the category is quite young - I believe it was only created a couple of weeks ago. While I think there is more similarity between these two (as opposed to, say, novelists and screenwriters), because both are writing for some sort of a screen, I don't know enough about either to be sure and think there is value in mimicing the larger categories. But, regardless, this is more about whether the close reflects the consensus (or lack thereof) or not, rather than the underlying merits. Best, A Musing 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Checking the contents of each category suggests not a lot of overlap. I would expect the same to be equally true of the female only versions of each category. A pity we don't have any automagic way to intersect categories. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Neanderthal theory of autism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Improper speedy delete. Article is notable after a researcher at BBC wrote a Guide Entry including this theory in his review of Neanderthals [1] Rdos 08:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse the speedy deletion which I did. This DRV with its links to four previous AFDs is ample mandate for speedy deletion. -- RHaworth 08:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse and I'm off to point out toi the H2G2 editors that they have been had. This theory is restricted, as far as I can tell, to the multiply-rebuffed POV pusher who registered this request. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The article in question have been on peer-review and is part of the permanent entries. What you think about H2G2 is irrelevant to this discussion. Their editors consists mostly of researchers and this means the theory is not restricted to the editor, or a small part of the autistic community, it is recognized in the wider scientific community as well. --Rdos 09:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Don't tell me how H2G2 works and what it means to be in the Edited Guide, my user account number is 50,000 lower than the creator of that article and I authored over 50 edited guide entries, I was active well before Rupert and for at least a year after. Looking at that H2G2 editor's contributions, I would not be at all surprised ot find it was you, but it hardly matters because I know from personal experience that the H2G2 peer-review process can and does let complete bollocks past. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy endorse per Guy, and note that it's been deleted eight times already, going back to 2005. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse with that history of AfD, it should have been deleted before it was created. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse per above. Doczilla 17:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse. That one source is not enough, but I'd once again like to point out that I have heard of this theory before, so there are probably sources somewhere. But we need them here. -Amarkov moo! 17:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Husond/Userboxes/BasqueCountry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Admin Cyde Weys deleted this user subpage of !mine on the grounds of WP:CSD#T1. I contacted him [2] and expressed my disagreement, as not only this page is not on the template space, as IMO it can hardly be considered "divisive and inflammatory". No response from Cyde. Húsönd 02:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore Userspace is not template space. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I can't say whether or not it is imflammatory because I have never seen it. 19:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore If one person thinks a template is divisive, they should discuss it with the owner who is in charge of it. In this case, that did not happen. The first words in the name of this page are "User:Husond", putting it in the userspace, not template.--CJ King 03:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore - doesn't meet T1, far as I can see. Very least, Cyde Weys should have notified you of the potential issue - Alison^☺ 06:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)q
  • Comment I say very least, Cyde Weys should not have deleted in the first place. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  14:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore does not meet T1, in userspace. Cyde's response was inadequate. – Riana ^ऋ 14:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, divisive template. If it walks like a template, and quacks like a template, and is transcluded on half a dozen pages like a template, it's a template. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • May I assume that you then no longer want to have the compromise we found? Just say the word, we both can get the guys and it will be fun, just like old times. You know, speedy deletions undeletions redeletions unredeltions, general wheelwarring and lots of wikidarama and time wasting. You know... fun. I am just kidding, let's not go there again - we have discussed this at great length and I think the consensus was that the T1 divisive and inflammatory clause needs to interpreted VERY narrowly (some contending if at all - technically it is userspace, duck or no duck) and I don' think that "This user supports the independence of the Basque Country." can be viewn as so horribly that it warrants speedy deletion. Using this measure ANYTHING could be declared D&I and we both know where that ends. Let's not rock the boat here. CharonX/talk 01:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The compromise was to move material unrelated to the encyclopaedia into userspace rather than removing it outright, not to exempt it from policy. I don't know where you think application of WP:CSD policy ends, but to me it ends with Wikipedia being maintained as an encyclopaedia and not a POV battleground. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment But if it's in userspace, it isn't a template. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  14:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Senseless. It's not my fault that other users decided to transclude my subpage. It is not a template, it does not fall under T1 and there's nothing divisive about it. Users are free to inform in the shape of a userbox that they support the independence of a particular country. In fact, it's useful that they do so in order to declare a few POVs that may reflect in their edits. Húsönd 21:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore normally I wouldn't note this because my opinion is the same as others' who have also opined to restore, but because DRV is not always about formal consensus but is also sometimes a headcount (esp. if formal consensus has not been reached within the alotted time), my opinion is that since the article that looks like a template is in userspace, it's not actually technically a template, so should be restored. Also, discussion is definitely in order. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Certainly a template per the duck test as Sam Blanning notes, so if it is divisive and inflammatory then WP:CSD#T1 surely applies to it. It doesn't bother me, but I can see how it might upset some editors. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Am I wrong to consider Cyde's attitude far more upsetting, inflammatory and divisive? Húsönd 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Why, God forbid you should disagree with Cyde. In fact, I agree with you. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think it is probably a template, but how can we know if it is divisive without seeing the contents? Can they be posted here? --165.124.124.52 21:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Restore Never mind, I just found the google cache. How is this divisive exactly? Should any political statement be deleted? --165.124.124.52 21:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it should just be taken to your blog, or your Myspace, or any of the myriad websites that exist for the purpose of allowing anyone to air their views, of which Wikipedia is not one. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore I fail how to see how this is so grievously divisive and inflammatory that speedy-deletion was required. I recommend sending to appropiate places if you feel it is necessary that it is gone and see what community consensus says. CharonX/talk 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore, utterly ridiculous. Daniel Bryant 01:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• List at MFD Probably should be deleted, but definitely should not be speedy deleted. GRBerry 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore Userbox in userspace, speedily deleted out of process. Do not autolist on MFD, but no prejudice for anyone to manually list on MFD if desired once this is closed. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore Speedy is for obvious violations, and this one is quite clearly not obvious enough & merits discussion in the proper place. DGG 03:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Wait a second. Speedy deletion appears inappropriate here and my guts tell me to restore, but the underlying issue is not trvial. I agree with Husond that a user affirming his POV on his userpage provides some degree of transparency. On the other hand, suppose a userbox endorsed Palestinian independence. Would that still be OK? What if it supported Serbian sovereignity over Kosovo? Greek (or Turkish) sovereignity over all of Cyprus? Palestinian control of Jerusalem? Stammer 09:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Freedom of speech is a two-way road. If you allow one thing you have to allow the others too. So yes, "This user supports XYZ" would be alright (as long as it remains civil and is not a personal attack). Fortunately we have some sanity checks in form of WP:POINT, WP:MFD and in a pitch WP:IAR. Or in another way "This user supports Palestinian indepence" would be as ok as this one (unless MFD says otherwise), but if you delete this one then you could argue the same point for "This user support Quebecian independence" or "This user supports German independce". It is simply the difference between everything is allowed but (using MFD or IAR or COMMON SENSE) and nothing is allowed except (when you realistically can't have anything, because you can't know beforehand if its ok to have or not) CharonX/talk 10:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • (Responding to initial comment) That's a question for T/MfD. Daniel Bryant 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I now see that to List at MFD would have been the appropriate thing to do. I like Charon's argument too, but I doubt that First Amendment protection should automatically extend to userspaces here. Stammer 06:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• List at MFD. This doesn't seem to me to be a clear breach of WP:CSD#T1. I think that it probably is better not to encourage advertising of political perspectives, because that risks distracting us into assessing editors by their politics rather than by the quality of their contributions, but I think it's stretching things a long way to call this userbox inflammatory; anyone who gets inflamed by hearing that someone advocates independence for somewhere really needs to work on their anger management, and I do wonder how they can follow NPOV policies if they have this much difficulty knowing that someone holds polar opposite views. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore with listing optional. I'm somewhat appalled at Cyde's utter failure to assume good faith or attempt any dialog with another admin, either before or after this dubious deletion, and I greatly admire Husond's restraint in not turning this into a wheel war. Frankly, I think all political (and religious) userboxes could be considered inflammatory, but, per BrownHairedGirl, I think it's stretching things a bit to consider this one particularly inflammatory. Xtifr _tälk 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and list, seems pretty clear-cut. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at MFD, doesn't fit T1 since it's in user space. This is a job for MFD. --Coredesat 13:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment When will this be closed? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment After five to seven days, usually. I think. CharonX/talk 02:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment OK thanks. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore Husond is surely entitled to have these things in user space.--Simul8 12:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment User's sixteenth edit. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo NSider Forums (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

These are the official forums of Nintendo of America. That should be enough to say it's notable enough to not get an A7 like it did. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 01:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, article consists of one sentence saying what the forum is. There's an AFD behind it as well. If you want to rewrite the article, get some reliable sources for it. --Coredesat 05:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no credible grounds given for overturning AfD. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The version I speedy deleted certainly met the criteria for doing so. There was no assertion of notability and nearly no content. But based on the comments in the AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo NSider Forums) about six months ago, I think the subject may be notable enough for an article. Since it's a topic I don't know much about, I'll leave that for others to decide. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion the deleted version was definitely worth speedying, as the full text was "Nintendo Nsider forums, is a website created by Nintendo to have NSider express themselves." and that's all. I'm inclined to say we're unlikely to ever have an article on this, but if anybody really wants to try to create a good well-sourced article with multiple reliable sources, there's always user space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist: The AfD wasn't exactly a consensus decision. Reading the AfD comments, I'm not sure why the admin closed it the way they did. I think it may require more thorough discussion in the AfD. Reminder: This discussion is not about whether you would have recommended to delete in the AfD, but whether the AfD was processed correctly. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In this case he is questioning the recent speedy delete under criteria A7, not the AFD. --pgk 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Understood, but I think my feedback still stands. Speedies get justified based on prior AfDs. It's my contention that the AfD could use some more discussion and should be relisted. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 19:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD and speedy. AfD within administrator discretion. Daniel Bryant 01:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I tend to the view that the article had merit and should be kept, but it is clear that was not the way the discussion went. A reasonable close.DGG 03:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as the AfD closing was valid. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)