Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 7

Category:Erdős numbers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CFD)

Please see for example Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Reasons_to_reverse_the_deletion, where a long discussion is at the top of the WikiProject Mathematics talk page. A user has organized some discussion, and salvaged some of the lost data, at User:Mikkalai/By_Erdos. Note that related categories were deleted also, e.g. Erdos Number 2, Erdos Number 3 etc. There is a huge discussion spread over talk pages at many articles. There seems to be divergence between editors, who voted to delete (in the third attempt), and mathematicians who consult Erdos Numbers. Thank you. Pete St.John 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: this deletion review has been extensively canvassed by the nominator (see contribs list). The extensive list of those notified of the DRV appears to include none of those who !voted to "delete", and at least one editor who did not participate in the CfD debate. I will post to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was wrong not to have posted to Brownhairedgirl and SparsityProblem, two of the people who had voted to delete; I was mistaken thinking they already knew. However, Brownhairedgirl was mistaken that I did not notify any delete-voters, as noted below. I notified DGG, MeegsC, and Carlossuarez46. I skipped the anonymous IP. Pete St.John 20:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• The user who you refer to as not participating in the CfD debate is somebody who has certainly expressed an interest in and has been involved in this issue, as can be seen by looking at this page that he created in his own user space: User:Mikkalai/By Erdos --Ramsey2006 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so I !voted for Delete at the CfD & I was among those notified. DGG (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Update re canvassing. I 'd like to repeat my apologies elsewhere to Pete for my mistake in thinking that none of the "delete" voters have been notified (Pete notified 3 of the 5, but chose not to notify the others).
However, after that initial canvassing, Pete engaged in a prolonged and highly partisan votestacking exercise: see WP:ANI#The_votestacking_exercise_continues and User talk:PeterStJohn#Please_tone_it_down. Closing admins may wish to consider the impact of the camapigning in weighing consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Also see the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. At the last discussion over deletion 11 contributors voted Keep (or strong keep) and 5 (plus one anonymous IP address) voted to delete. When Kbdank71 announced the result (delete) he said "...delete. I honestly don't have time to explain every reason why..." (In all fairness, he then explained that in his opinion the reasons to delete were better than the reasons to keep). At the time some of us (who only learned about the deletion when the bot was triggered) felt rail-roaded. Be that as it may, in response to subsequent criticism he gathered the reasons to delete at this log, which since then has acquired rebuttals; however, rebutting reasons to delete is not the same as reasons to have the category, which I tried to synopsize at the math project talk page. Each of the 11 "keep" votes gives reasons at that link, of course. Pete St.John 21:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as closer per my explanation Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28. --Kbdank71 18:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The closer's interpretation of the discussion was correct. No substantial argument has been provided that Erdős numbers are in any way a defining attribute and not just the mathematical research equivalent of the Bacon number (i.e. a statistical curiousity which may or may not imply certain things about specific people). The two options offered at the post-close discussion seem more viable: create and maintain a sourced list or add an optional parameter to {{Infobox Scientist}}. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  Regardless if the categories are kept or deleted, I'd like to see both those options implemeted. - jc37 21:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse a deletion review Overturn. I'm not a practicing mathematician, but I find the number useful. Though mathematicians as a group do not have a particularly extravagant subculture, it is important to respect what subcultural quirks they have. I thought the deletion was rather odd when I heard about it. --Pleasantville 18:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  I could be mistaken, but based on your comments, I think you wanted to "overturn"? (Endorse/overturn refers to the original discussion, not the DRV nom.) - jc37 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  Revised. I was confused by the way things were phrased. Maybe the intro could be clarified?--Pleasantville 19:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  "I find the number useful" seems to be an argument to give at the CFD, not the DRV. --Kbdank71 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  In my opinion, the reasons to keep the category were ignored when the overwhelming consensus was ignored; that's why I've raised this deletion review. In your explanation of the deletion, you said that the reasons to delete were better than the reasons to keep, although the 11-5 (11-6 if you count the anonymous IP) would seem to have disagreed with you. So in this discussion we are obliged to remind reviewers of the reasons to keep; Pete St.John 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Endorse of EN 1 and 2. Endorse of EN 3 and higher - As I noted elsewhere, it's been shown in previous CFD discussions that the lower numbers (1, 2 and at most 3), are the ones of value. The reason for Weak endorse of 1 and 2, is that making this a list would enable references to show how this person actually has such a number. So even if these categories are kept, I would strongly suggest that such a list be made to complement/support the categories. - jc37 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I dropped a note at Jc37's talk also, and will post a clarification of "endorse vs overturn" at the wikiproject:mathematics talk page. Pete St.John

Thank you for your concern, but I (hopefully) posted what I inteded to. Though you're right that I'm wobbling the fence when it comes to #s 1 and 2, though more due to previous CFD discussions than the one this DRV refers to. Hence why it's Weak endorse, instead of Weak overturn. I didn't see the closer mention that he was taking the previous nominations in consideration when closing. - jc37 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion for EN 1,2,3. This is a verifiable, well-known part of the mathematical culture and a measure of the cooperation. Mathematicians proudly report their EN. This number is not as arbitrary as laymen might think: Erdos has over 500 co-authors, beating any other by a wide-wide margin, so he is a natural "center of condensation", unlike the stupid copycat Bacon game. As it was already mentiojned, the category is easier to maintain that the list: this info may be more readily update in the bio article, which is watched by interested persons. `'Míkka 19:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion per ongoing discussion. I respect Kdbank71 and do not question his intentions, only the fact that I believe his decision was (intentionally or not) more of an executive decision then an assessment of consensus. There is a lengthy discussion, which I will not attempt to recreate or reiterate to contextualize my opinion here, but I will again say that I express my opinion here with all due respect for Kdbank71 (and others). --Cheeser1 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Week Endorse A distinction needs to be made between the concept of Erdos numbering and the actual listing of each mathematicians number. The former is clearly notable the latter less so. I feel that some of the keep votes are using the notability of the former as a reason to keep the latter. My second concern is the source used to find many of these numbers, namely the AMS Collaboration Distance which is algorithmically generated. As such I don't think it provides notability for an individual authors number. For some authors there are third party sources, such as the authors web-site or The Erdos Number project, use of these sources would have greater notability claim. But I feel that calculating the number from AMS when the author does not even bother to list it is pushing encylopedic value. There is also a small technical problem as to the fact that the AMS site only provides a greatest upper bound on the number as its possible that there are paper not included in the database which provide a shorter path. Another problem is if we take these numbers to their logical conclusion using AMS data and the fact that 50% of mathematicians have an EN of 5 or less, that would make the categories very large with in the order of 850 articles in EN4[1]. I've not been convinced by arguments for notability, Rubin claim of a high correlation with field medalists in the CFD is interesting, from [2] they are all in the first 50% 11 with EN2,18 (EN3), 16 (EN4), 2 (EN5), maybe this is due to the fact that fields medalists probably publish more than average, but this is analysis better suited to the Erdos number page than the category. Personally I don't think is a particular useful measure, it favors mathematician in particular field and time span, and for a large part the numbers are fairly randomly distributed. So basically I think the debate is WP:ILIKEIT vrs WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the categories will always be incomplete and sometimes inaccurate and possibly become unworkable, and there are many other better measures of a mathematicians worth. --Salix alba (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion per ongoing discussion. This is a useful category, for many reasons, explained in detail in the Cfd debate. It is especially useful for editors who contribute to biographies of mathematicians and scientists, as a means to ascertain (very roughly) how close said mathematician or scientist is to combinatorics and graph theory (the subjects Paul Erdős mostly contributed to), and as a navigational tool. The fact that there are so many references out there to this subject, and even a niche in the literature devoted to studying the Erdős collaboration graph (the graph to which this category pertains, after all), should give some added weight to this argument. Turgidson 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion The record shows that the closing admin's action simply did not reflect a consensus. The weight of consensus had not shifted against the categories since the two previous attempts to get rid of them. Ntsimp 21:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn for EN 1, 2, and 3. I did not see a consensus for deletion based on the strengths of arguments, but rather the strenuous repetition of the same arguments by a few discussants. However this may be, from the CfD discussion it is evident that even among the proponents of deletion, more than a few favoured keeping the categories for the lower numbers. The information is verifiable, and better maintainable by using categories than using lists. To non-mathematicians this may be considered trivia, but mathematicians who have a low Erdős number cherish it with pride.  --Lambiam 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close per Black Falcon; this is trivial like astrologic sign and other things that may mean more to more people - and people with Erdos # X -like Bacon # X - have nothing really in common with each other. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  Well no, it's not trivial, and yes, authors who coauthor with so-and-so do have something in common, which is relevant to mathematicians, but all that has been re-rehashed. I really just want to point out that actually, there is a category "astrological signs" as notice under Taurus. It certainly matters very little to me; astrology has been divorced from science for something like 300 years. But as you point out, it matters to lots of other people, who mostly keep to themselves, so I can abide it. Can't you? Pete St.John 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion Mathematicians think Erdos numbers are interesting. There is even some bibliography and serious research on the topic: The Mathematical Intelligencer: vol. 21, no. 3 (Summer 1999), 51–63 and it has been also useful for studies on collaboration among mathematicians and research on small world social networks regarding their degrees of separation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Requiemdirge (talk • contribs) 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. My support for the categories mirrors what Míkka wrote, but my real problem is the lack of process. 11 people (vs. 5) explained that they felt that the category should be kept, and that's significant. Many good reasons were given, despite the badgering of the original nominator. Even if those who wished to delete increased threefold the result should not have been delete -- just "no consensus". Beyond all that, though, the categories were useful and added to the encyclopedic value of the articles. (I won't even bring up notability -- the sheer volume of papers written on the subject easily suffices, and sufficient mention of this exists on the original AfD.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak overturn I kind of agree with Kbdank71 that the arguments to delete were better, but even with discussions not being a vote, it's uncustomary to delete in the face of a 5-11 count in the absence of unusual circumstances such as single-purpose account !votes. "Delete arguments are better" is not easily distinguished from "I personally think the category should be deleted". I will probably vote to delete in the second round. Erdős numbers are fun to talk about but no one is suggesting that the information shouldn't be here, just that the category system is not the appropriate medium for it, which I think is probably true. --Trovatore 02:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I must admit to some confusion: at first I assumed this was Cat:Wikipedians by Erdős number, which I'm further surprised to see hasn't been deleted yet. Anything less than the median is of some signifance, and is going to be more material to a person's notability than the endless "ethnic" categories that people seem to delight in adding -- which generally have precisely none. Alai (E#5, btw.) 02:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion at least for Erdős numbers 1, 2 and 3, as per Lambiam. Gandalf61 09:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I have closed several debates against the votecount myself, sometimes even blatantly so; when I do that though, I try to carefully craft the closing statement, and its foundation on relevant policies, practices and precedents. Sorry, but "because I think side X had better arguments" doesn't cut it for me. Having read the debate, especially the discussion, I see many valid and coherent arguments in favor of the keep, validly dismissing the claims that Erdos numbers are just trivia. Yes, there were many WP:NOTAGAIN !votes on the keep side, but also many WP:PERABOVE !votes on the delete side; but in total, I don't see how this could be closed as anything else but "no consensus". Preserving only 1-3 is a viable option in my opinion, but AFAICT this idea emerged only at this DRV, thus it's possibly out of DRV's scope (though we're not bureaucracy) Duja► 12:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse deletion. There was lots of evidence that the subject of Erdős numbers was notable, and no argument on that point as plentiful references were produced to papers and other publications which discussed Erdős numbers and the graphs derived from them; but there as no evidence that the Erdős number of an individual was anything other than a point of trivia widely regarded with in the mathematical community as a joke, and in no way a "defining characteristic" of a mathematician per WP:CAT. (Repeated requests for evidence of Erdős numbers being used as a defining characteristic by official academic publications (rather than on individual's homepage etc) produced only one example, in which they were described as "silly"). The failure of many "keep" !voters to acknowledge the difference between on one hand the notability of the topic as a whole and on the other hand the question of whether an individual's Erdős number is a "defining characteristic" was one of the major reasons why the debate became so heated. Further discussion on the talk page after the CfD closed exposed further fundamental problems with categorisation by Erdos number, including that:
  1) there is no consensus on the definition of an Erdős number (whether it should be restricted to collaboration in mathematical papers or extend to all scientific papers or even to all academic papers)
  2) the mathscinet database regularly claimed as a reliable source can validate only the first definition of an Erdős number, which is not the definition used in the head article Erdős number
  3) Other assessments of an individual's Erdős number amount to original research.
  Some contributions to this DRV claim or imply that the views of mathematicians are more important in a deletion discussion related related to mathematics than those on non-mathematicians, a principle which would set a far-reaching precedent. Will admins closing future debates be expected to try to verify the professional credentials of individuals who are all entitled to anonymity? Or do we continue the existing practice of treating all wikipedians as rational editors who can weigh the evidence offered by those claiming expertise in a particular subject, by verifying the evidence against reliable sources?
  The closure of this debate as "delete" would be wrong if WP:CAT accepted that a widespread joke was grounds for categorisation, but unless and until WP:CAT is changed in such a fundamental way, there were only two ways to close this debate: by making a headcount and saying "keep", or by measuring the arguments against wikipolicy and saying "delete". Kbdank71 was quite correct to choose the latter, and the existence of a campaign amongst a few mathematician wikipedians to attack the decision does not alter existing policy. I suggest that before closing this deletion review, a check is made for the extent of canvassing; I have seen some, but have no idea how widespread it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close per Black Falcon - Galloglass 14:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion per all the reasonable arguments above. (Igny 15:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
• Endorse close per Black Falcon and BrownHairedGirl. Sam Blacketer 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. First, a reminder to all that this is not the place to rehash deletion arguments. This forum is only for discussing the closure itself. Many of the Overturn and even some of the Endorse !votes above fail to remember that fact. Since the topic at hand is the administrator's closing of the discussion, I would have to say that the reasons given for said closure are valid. The !votes in the discussion for "keep" based on "Nothing has changed since the last time" were properly ignored. Similarly weak were the "keep" arguments that seemed to be addressing the notability of Erdos numbers as a concept, rather than the appropriateness of categorization by said numbers. Such arguments would have been valid for an AfD on Erdos number but not on a CfD; they were likewise properly ignored. The remainder of the "keep" arguments, while making a decent case for keeping, were clearly not sufficient to overcome the significant "not a defining characteristic" concerns. Powers ^T 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion A substantial majority with coherent arguments argued "keep". The views of those expressing the same opinions as previously should not be discounted. The close was not in accordance with the debate. Thincat 16:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. There was no consensus to delete. The close was inappropriate. Paul August ☎ 16:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the closer's rationale. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, because there was no consensus to delete. A closing administrator should ignore opinions which are blatantly false, illogical or against policy. The reasoning is that in a wider debate with more unbiased participants, such opinions would be ignored and a consensus would form ignoring these erroneous opinions. However, administrators should be careful with this. It's not proper for administrators to ignore comments which in their opinion should carry less weight if this is only their personal opinion, because that would give administrators powers above non-administrators. I believe that the arguments used by the closing administrator were too subjective and thus that it was closed improperly. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the closer's rationale. The closing admin acted properly in concluding that the weight of policy was on the side of the "delete" voters. SparsityProblem 19:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  WP:CAT is not policy; it is an editing guideline that is "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Guidelines should follow consensus, not the other way around. Consensus (or the clear lack of it) at the CfD discussion should trump a literal-minded application of the guideline.  --Lambiam 22:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  I don't believe that a majority vote that was grounded in "having this trivial set of categories on Wikipedia amuses me, and if you don't think it's appropriate, you must not be a real mathematician and you probably dropped out of kindergarten too" trumps a minority vote that was grounded in guidelines and tradition. SparsityProblem 23:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  Well your glib and offensive gloss of the opposing view is, perhaps, no worse than my categorization of "deletionist editors" to which you objected, so we'll let that pass. However, the "guideline" arguements, that I saw, were also rebutted. Please point to specific ones that were unsatisfactorily addressed. I don't know about "traditions" but Erdos Numbers are older than most wikipedians, perhaps, certainly decades older than Wikipedia itself, so maybe our tradition trumps your tradition. Pete St.John 23:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  What's this "our tradition" vs. "your tradition" business? So far as I can tell, we're both Wikipedians, and that's the only relevant identity here. I think the closing admin's summary given on the CFD talk page show how guidelines support the case for deletion, and I'm aware that rebuttals were posted, but I don't find them convincing. Lastly, I have no idea in what universe it could possibly be relevant that Erdos numbers are older than Wikipedia itself. Baldness is also older than Wikipedia, but we don't have a "bald people" category. SparsityProblem 23:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  Age pertains to tradtion, you brought up tradtions. I'd be interested in someone enunciating the tradition which implies that the Erdos Categories should be deleted. Pete St.John 21:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  That kindergarten comment seems a bit hypocritical, considering part of your argument was "your opinion doesn't count since you don't have a PhD yet." --Cheeser1 01:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  Oh plz; if I were saying that the opinion of anyone who doesn't have a PhD doesn't count, I wouldn't be participating in this discussion, since I don't have one. Nor do some of the people I respect most in the world. However, that's not particularly relevant. The point is, this is not a war between mathematicians and an evil cadre of Wikipedians bent on stopping them from having their harmless fun. It's rather a debate between those who think Wikipedia should be governed by general guidelines that have evolved over time to promote the building of a useful encyclopedia, and those who think exceptions should be made in order to promote subjects they like. (User:PeterStJohn said as much in one of his canvassing messages at the mathematics WikiProject page, where he said that these categories were a good way to memorialize Erdos. Well, Erdos was a great guy, but the category tree is not the place for memorials.) SparsityProblem 01:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  The memorial is part of the reason mathematicians like the category, not a reason to have the category. Mathematicians liking and using the category is one of the reasons for keeping the category. Pete St.John 21:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion, strongly as per extensive arguement. My opposition to the deletion has been sufficiently prominent, I think; however, I had misconstrued this Deletion Review mechanism, thinking that overturning admins required admins. However, "anyone may comment" appears to mean "anyone may vote endorse/overturn, as those are really comments, not votes" and I wish my "vote" to be on the record. Pete St.John 19:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. There was no consensus to delete. In addition, several of the supposedly stronger arguements don't make any sense to me. For example, how is the fact that not all 8000 mathematicians with a particular Erdos number (or range of numbers) are not notable enough to have a wikipedia entry even relavant to the discussion, much less a reason to delete? We don't delete categories about people who were born in year 1957 just because not everybody born in 1957 is notable enough to have a wikipedia article. As for accuracy, this has not been demonstrated to be a problem. Wikipedia has policies reguarding truth vs verifiability using reliable sources. As for Erdos numbers not reflecting ones skill as a mathematician and similar comments, unless a person's Erdos number is 0, this is a strawman. Erdos numbers have never been presented as such, although no doubt many mathematicians with Erdos number 1 are extremely and uncommonly good mathematicians. But this is not what they measure.

As a mathematician, I like being able to see somebody's Erdos number at a glance when I come across a math biography. It makes wikipedia a more useful and valuable online encyclopedia for me. (Yes, I could go over to MR and type in the guys name, but I generally wouldn't bother to do so as a wikipedia reader, unless it was to add the information as an editor.) It is a significant part of mathematical culture and folklore, and a part of mathematical culture which has been popularized to a great extent in the general public, also. People are interested in the individual Erdos numbers of individual mathematicians, even if this is not the most important and significant peice of information contained in a biographical article. And the list of those interested does not only include other mathematicians. (As a side note, in my opinion, large Erdos numbers of individual mathematicians is just as interesting as small numbers. If the subject of a math bio has an Erdos number of 14, this is something that I would be fascinated to stumble across in an article, and after stumbling across this little peice of information, I would definitely be inclined to go over to MR and start tracing the collaboration paths, at least late on a friday afternoon. I would also click on the category to see who else has a bio here who has such a large finite Erdos number.) --Ramsey2006 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the forum to debate the arguments over whether the category should be deleted or not. The only thing we're debating here was whether the closing admin acted in accordance with rules. SparsityProblem 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, SparsityProblem, but unfortunately it's not so simple. The closing admin's stated reason for overturning the 11-5 majority was that the reasons to delete were better than the reasons to keep. I don't see that, and the clear, two-to-one consensus didn't see that, but that's the excuse he gives. Pete St.John 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Pete St.John as a regular participant in these discussions I know to my cost its the quality of the arguments on both sides not the weight of numbers that decides these things. - Galloglass 22:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Galloglass, in this case my citing the numbers (11-6 to Keep; not a lack of consensus to delete, but a clear consensus to keep) is my arguement that the superiority of the "delete" arguement is at least not obvious (a two to one majority didn't appreciate it). In fact, the arguements to delete have mostly been vapid and clearly rebutted with strong arguements by veterans. However, neither numbers, nor logic, necessarily win "these things" by themselves. The deletion is a good example of a decision that was made despite either logic or numbers (at least as far as I have been able to discern). Be all that as it may, a clear vote to overturn serves at least as a signal that a part of the user community is deeply dissatisfied with an administrative fiat. That's the start of reform, even if we don't get back the Category. I'm really much more concerned with the process: fiat ignoring consensus, opposition ignoring expertise, and members of one group (deletionist editors?) attacking processes internal to another group (apolitical mathematicians). Why do they care? Pete St.John 22:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your characterization of this debate as an issue between "deletionist editors" and "apolitical mathematicians" is both disingenuous and offensive. Knock it off, please -- on Wikipedia we try to discuss content, not people. You know as well as I do that the only self-identified professional mathematician who voiced an opinion on the debate called Erdos numbers a "mathematician's joke". And there is nothing "internal" to the group of mathematicians -- even if mathematicians actually favored keeping these cats, *WHICH THEY DIDN'T* -- about processes on Wikipedia, which are governed by all Wikipedia users. SparsityProblem 22:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Offensive, perhaps, dunno about disengenuous, but as someone else commented, if we are goaded repeatedly we have a harder time keeping our temper. Call the two camps "delete" and "keep", then. However:

No, of course I don't know as well as <you> do that the only self-identified professional mathematician who voiced an opinion on the debate called Erdos numbers a "mathematician's joke". There have been three debates (that I know of) prior to my learning there was an issue. Pointing to one self-professed mathematician calling it a joke says nothing about the community; for that, feel free to vist the wikiproject. Opinion among mathematicians is largely in favor of keeping the category (not entirely, and many aren't aware of the issues). Several have posted on this very thread, unambiguously in favor of keeping, and plainly (and verifiably) identifying themselves as mathematicians. And furthermore, there is more to the "joke" even taken as such, as I described earlier. It may be that not enough of the majority voting to keep the category self-identified as mathematicians, but they did in fact express the consensus in the profession (that we like it and use it and you are free to ignore it). Please stop rehashing "reasons" that have been rebutted over, and over again, many times. Pete St.John 23:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of mathematicians who have been against keeping the category. --Salix alba (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what your justification might be for saying "Opinion among mathematicians is largely in favor of keeping the category," since most mathematicians don't pay attention to Wikipedia kerfuffles and thus aren't even aware of what's happening. Even if you mean "opinion among mathematicians who use Wikipedia", I still have no idea what the possible grounds might be for saying this. Many people may identify themselves as mathematicians, but those who actually have completed their academic training and are employed as mathematicians and interact with other mathematicians on a regular basis, in real life, are more likely to understand mathematical culture than those who haven't. And I say this not as a way of suggesting that anyone is better than anybody else (I'm only a grad student, and not in mathematics, although I did do an undergraduate minor in mathematics, for whatever that counts for), but only because some people have made so much of the claim that "mathematicians support this". Finally, "we like it and use it and you are free to ignore it" is never a good argument for keeping a category. There are guidelines to govern which categories should and shouldn't exist, and they exist for a reason. "[Some subset of] one special-interest group likes it" is never a valid argument. SparsityProblem 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I should have said "mathematicians typically and characteristically have interest in Erdos Numbers" and "the consensus among wikipidean mathematicians favors keeping the category". I didn't mean to imply that all mathematcians care about the issue, or like Erdos Numbers. One advocate of the promulgation of Erdos Numbers is Ron Graham, formerly president of the American Mathematical Society. It's a well known thing to us. And yes, I agree with you that mathematicians are more likely to understand mathematical culture (I'm not sure I get your point there). Finally, please point to the specific guideline that leads to categories like "people born in Ohio" or "in 1957" but not "Mathematicians with Erdos Number 2". Thanks, Pete St.John 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I still have no idea what your grounds are for "mathematicians typically and characteristically have interested in Erdos Numbers"; they're really something that's more of a curiosity enjoyed by dabblers in the subject. As for the specific guideline, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization: "In general, categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life, such as their career, origin and major accomplishments". Birthdate and place of origin are notable in a person's life; Erdos number is notable in no one's life, except for that of Erdos. SparsityProblem 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"dabblers", see Ron Graham, formerly President of the AMS, as counterexample, mentioned above; coauthoring with Erdos is notable to mathematicians, see for example the maintenance of the databse at MathSciNet; and your parallel is off, it would be like saying "being born in NY is only notable to NY". Coauthoring with Erdos is notable in the same way that graduating from MIT is notable. Erdos is certainly not the only important coauthor, but his record-shattering number of collaborations (500+ coauthors?) makes him a conspicuous place to start for this kind of analysis. I don't purport that anything is perfect, only notable.Pete St.John 22:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The statement "coauthoring with Erdos is notable in the same way that graduating from MIT is notable" is unmitigated nonsense. Show me a CV belonging to a mathematics faculty member where they *specifically* mention having coauthored with Erdos (as opposed to listing such a paper on a list of all their publications). Even if that statement were accurate, it would mean that it would be fine to create categories for collaborators of all major mathematicians, in the same way that we have categories for alumni of major universities. Would you support that? Finally, your argument only suggests that the category "Erdos number 1" should exist, and says nothing about higher numbers. SparsityProblem 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you two please stop this? This is not really the place to argue the merits of the category, and you obviously have a fundamental disagreement about how policy applies in this case. Bickering with each other, accusing each other of things like speaking "unmitigated nonsense" is not helpful, and especially not when it's about something for the CfD, not a DRV. --Cheeser1 23:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand is whether there's a "consensus among mathematicians" for keeping this category, but I admit that things have strayed a bit far afield from that. SparsityProblem 23:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as keep/no consensus. I don't have much to say, as I think that others have already done a fine job of explaining why the categories are appropriate. Of course they are not very precise tests of prominence, and anyone who knows what an Erdős number is understands that they must be taken with a large grain of salt. Others have already explained, in the CfD and DRV, the advantages that categories have over lists in this case. I really see absolutely no reason to ignore the rough consensus in this case which favored keeping. 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XDanielx (talk • contribs)
• Overturn, closer did not act appropriately when examining keep versus delete !votes. At best, it would have been a no consensus default to keep, not a straight-out delete. Arguments on the keep side were clearer than those on the delete side. Indeed, I agree with Daniel that there was no reason to ignore consensus, and the advantages of keeping this category outnumber the disadvantages, when particularly the disadvantages are not so clear. Ramsey's assertion above reinforces that fact. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 00:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. If we have the space (and that's getting cheaper and cheaper) for all those ephemeral and non-notable soap and video game plot "articles" we certainly have space for well-written Mathematics articles. (And I have not been canvassed - I was a recent "victim" on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where I noticed the impassioned debate.) I have now done what I should have done before, and read the rationale of the deleters. I'm now a very weak overturner because the close seemed contrary to consensus but I would then vote to oppose some of the later number categories. Sorry for being a Bimbo!Alice.S 01:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is about a set of categories, not about an article. In addition, this comment isn't relevant as this discussion is solely about whether the closing admin acted correctly. Finally, even if this was the CFD rather than a DRV, "there's other stuff that sucks" is never a good argument for keeping a category or article. SparsityProblem 01:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. The closing admin gave no detailed reasoning at time of close, but later explained in detail at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28. This explanation consists mostly of reasons that are wrong or irrelevant, and exhibits a fundamental misreading of guidelines for categories that is not in accord with actual practice. The problems mostly involve an incorrect definition of "defining characteristic". Examples of reasons that are simply wrong include "not all of those 8,000 people are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles". That in itself is telling, as that means that Erdos numbers are not defining, or else all of those 8,000 people would have WP articles; and "That nicely illustrates one of the fundamental problems of these categories, that they are grouping together individuals who have so little in common that only this exercise groups them". The first of these reasons is just stupefyingly bad, but you can apply either reason to Category:1983 births or Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni to see the obvious flaws. Other reasons don't make sense either, such as the claim that an Erdos number says more about a persons' collaborators than it does that person itself. Well, clearly Erdos number 1 says that one of your collaborators was Paul Erdos. The claim that an Erdos number says nothing about your status or skill as a mathematician manages to be both wrong and irrelevant. Wrong, because low Erdos numbers (especially 1) confer some status in the mathematical community, and irrelevant because there is no requirement that a category reflect status. Category:People from Ohio is not a reflection of any status conferred on its members. Quale 05:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Because I've been so bewildered at the implication that the closing admin was following consensus, I've been reading WP:CON in detail. I found this interesting statement: "A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one." So I decided to check. I did this manually, so it might be off, but of the 41 people involved in the previous CFD, only 5 showed up for the new one. Ntsimp 05:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On top of that, I don't think the recent CfD was any stronger on the deletion side than the previous ones. Consensus in the last CfD was leaning significantly toward keeping the category, as with the previous ones. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Quale and Paul August. The rationales for keep were perfectly reasonable, and no consensus existed for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. There was no clear consensus for deletion. Closer seems to have said "well, the delete arguments convinced me", but that's not the definition of consensus. For deletion, the delete arguments needed to have convinced most experienced editors participating, not just the closing admin. It's pretty clear they didn't. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment These deletion-related pages seem have regular participants with a sort of culture, conventions, and language of their own. Can someone please translate "salt" into English? Michael Hardy 00:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. Salting is the process whereby the page is prevented from being recreated under its present name. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  See also WP:SALT. --Cheeser1 02:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Medical schools in California (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Category was deleted on grounds of overcategorization, but the category is useful as the overall status of medical education in California is contributing to a developing, well-documented health care crisis in the state, which all of these articles can be seen in light of or in reference to: [3], [4], [5], [6]. I have no problem with state-by-state categories of medical schools, nor with a US categorical list, as all these schools respond to both local and national health care problems. Amerique^dialectics 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse merge. Nothing wrong with the close. --Kbdank71 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse merge. I agree that there is a health care crisis, but it is not just in California, and this is not grounds to keep this category. The problem is throughout the entire country. There is an anticipated doctor shortage in the upcoming years, which is why there are new medical schools appearing, and the existing ones are expanding their class sizes throughout the country. I also dispute Amerique's claim that the category has utility with regard to the role of medical schools in the health care crisis (though this should not be a deciding factor in categorization). A medical school in California is no different than a medical school in any other state in the country. It might be true that most practicing physicians in California graduated from a California medical school, but doctors who graduated from schools in other states (or countries) also practice in California, too. Since there are no real differences between medical schools in all of the states, there is no need to categorize on the basis of state, as evident by no other categories of medical schools in a given state. The only potential reason to subcategorize by state is if the parent category (Category:Schools of medicine in the United States) becomes overpopulated - which won't happen anytime soon. Even if there were a category called "Health care crisis in California," I do not think medical schools should be in this category, or that "Medical schools in California" should be a subcategory. Since there is not and should not be a category for "Health care crisis in California," there is no reason to have "Medical schools in California" solely to represent its potential role in the health care crisis. --Scott Alter 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict, reply to Scott Alter) The important difference is not in the education received at these schools, but the situational context each are set in as institutions, which is largely determined by state demographics rather than by national priorities. The media reports on medical education on a state-by-state basis, why shouldn't WP have a category that makes articles on medical education easier to navigate on a state-by-state level? (If it's an issue, I'll volunteer to develop state-by-state categories of med schools., but this may take awhile.) Amerique^dialectics 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with your statement that "media reports on medical education on a state-by-state basis." In the 4 articles you mentioned, the first three reported on allied healthcare workers in California, noting the shortage of "pharmacists, dental hygienists, respiratory therapists and other health-care workers." There was no mention of a physician shortage in these articles. On the contrary, the fourth article you referenced commented on medical schools nationwide. Can you give me an example of differences in education based on state-based situational context? As far as I am aware, all US medical schools follow the same criteria for curriculum development, as set forth by the LCME. I think medical education is uniquely national in nature, as there is one common national licensing exam (unlike other professional tracts, such as business and law). Also, all other healthcare providers take local exams, which does vary by state (and within a state). I still fail to see how dividing the category by states will improve navigation. I think having 45 categories, each with somewhere between 1 and 14 articles, would hinder navigation. (5 states have no medical schools.) The list of medical schools in the United States is much easier to navigate by state than 45 additional categories. --Scott Alter 19:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was just looking at that list... I had to search around to find it. The "national-level" approach to addressing medical education is determined by the aggregation of local-level health concerns and priorities. The new medical school at UCR is being developed with local and state issues in mind. [7] I'm not saying there is a difference in accreditation requirements between states, or that the national-level list should be abolished, but that there was no need to get rid of a useful category for browsing medical institutions by state. Amerique^dialectics 20:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• There are also a ton of other references here:[8] Amerique^dialectics 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not going to argue with you about whether local or national issues shape medical education. In reality, it is a combination of both, but I'm not going to try to figure if it is more national or state. My opinion is that there is not enough difference in medical education by state to warrant division into separate categories. If you believe medical education in California is so special and unique when compared to the rest of the country, I implore you to create Medical education in California or Medical school in California. Then, I'd consider separating the category by state on this basis. Currently, I have not read anything on Wikipedia to claim there is any difference in education by state. --Scott Alter 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as closer. The agreement at the discussion was that subcategorisation of Category:Schools of medicine in the United States by US state, while logical, is premature at this point. All of the articles still appear in at least one of the subcategories of Category:Education in California. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • For each medical school article I come across, I try to make sure they all are in several hierarchies of categories besides being in Category:Schools of medicine in the United States. These include the parent university (if applicable), education in given state (which the parent university may be in), and a physical location (which the parent university may be in). This should ensure that the medical school articles are everywhere they belong and navigatable from several starting points. --Scott Alter 19:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • They mostly seem to connect to Category:Education in California via categories for the parent universities (see [9] for the list of articles). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Without speaking to this particular question, is there sentiment at CFD against subcategorization by US state unless we can do all fifty, or what? California is 12% of the US population and has more people than Canada. As a general rule I would expect that any category would start with a subcat for California followed by New York and Texas simply because there are more people, more schools, more anything in those states. According to the Google cache, there were 9 schools in this category -- not an overwhelming number, to be sure, but my mental peg for a category breakout is around the magic number 7 (as testing shows that's the typical number of items a person can keep in their head at any given time). --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Not that I'm aware. It seems to be more a question of when subcategorisation becomes justified. It is clearly justified when the subcategory is based on a substantially distinct defining attribute (e.g. having Category:American political scientists as a subcat of Category:Political scientists) and/or when a category becomes overpopulated. Whether location in California, as opposed to location in the US more generally, is defining for medical schools is one of the issues being discussed above. As for the second instance, different editors subscribe to different cutoff points, although 200 (after which the contents are no longer displayed on one page only) seems to be taken as the clearest indication. My personal threshold is significantly lower (50-100, depending on the topic), but that of the discussants apparently was not. I personally wouldn't mind having a California-specific category in this case, but I didn't feel strongly enough about it to post an objection against what was (at the time) unanimous support for merging. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • For any subcategorization by state, I think it should be all or none. I am a big proponent of consistency in categorical hierarchies. There are currently 114 articles in Category:Schools of medicine in the United States, with a potential of 155 articles (1 for each med school in the country + List of medical schools in the United States). If broken down by state, there would be between 0 and 14 articles per category with an average of 2.5 (114 med schools/45 states with med schools). 2.5 articles per category are too few. 114 (even 155) articles are not too many. This is second reason I am in support of keeping one category (the other reason above). --Scott Alter 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've said before I'm willing to help out with that. I may not be clear on the guiding logic on WP governing the use of categories. To me, a category would be useful even if it were only composed of one item, as a reader would then know "that's it" as far as, say, how many or what med schools are in a given state. I'm not seeing how "too many" or "too few" items per category on WP affects whatever the statistical reality happens to be in fact. We're only talking about how to represent and make accessible the information here, and a state-by-state categorical sorting would not be a bad thing, in addition to the national categorical sorting. Amerique^dialectics 21:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• The issue is not the work to potentially be done (if I thought it was appropriate, I'd do it myself), but I do not think it is appropriate to do so. After going through WP:Overcategorization, here are the many points this category violates:
  1. Non-defining or trivial characteristic (To me, the differences by state are insignificant. You seem to object to this.)

I most definitely object to this, especially as concerning state-supported public medical schools. Amerique^dialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Intersection by location (Inappropriate to categorize based on location alone.)

In which case, why have a Med schools in the US category at all? Amerique^dialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Narrow intersection (Categories would have 2.5 articles on average.)

If this is some kind of universal content guideline on WP, I'm willing to go along with it and not object to an argument that "med schools in states with fewer than 2.5 med schools should not be categorized according to the states they are in," but that would still seem to leave room for categories of med schools in states with over 2.5 institutions, right? Amerique^dialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Small with no potential for growth (It is unlikely that there will many new medical schools opening in the future. I know of a couple that have opened or will open soon, but not enough to drastically change these numbers. The potential for growth is nearly 0.)

WP's content navigation system, which categories are a specific element of, should reflect reality and make content accessible according to how people may be searching for data. As health education disparities (in the articles I linked to above) tend to be discussed on a state-wide level, in addition to on a national level (these discourses are often cross-referenced), state-level categories are not inappropriate and are further useful for making comparisons between states. Amerique^dialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Mostly-overlapping categories (It seems like you would still would want the articles to be in Category:Schools of medicine in the United States. This should definitely not be done (per the first line of Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories).)

Per the second line of that page: However there are some articles which should be in both a subcategory and a parent category. Amerique^dialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Based on any of these alone, Category:Medical schools in California would be considered overcategorization. --Scott Alter 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we obviously disagree on that, but I'm willing to let the community decide on it. Amerique^dialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse merge. I see nothing wrong with the close of this debate which was in line with consensus. Nor are there any substantial policy reasons to overturn it and allow the category to continue. What is fundamentally different about medical school in California compared to, say, Texas? Sam Blacketer 00:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about process, the process by which the deletion occurred is fine with me, the issue is whether state-by-state categories for med schools are somehow "overcategorical." I'm not and never have argued that there are differences in accreditation standards between states. I am arguing that simply having state-derived categories of med schools makes it easier to browse such easily relatable information from each article, rather than having to parse through the Category:Schools of medicine in the United States, which is alphabetically by school rather than by state, or find list of medical schools in the United States, which I have no problem with, but I also don't see how state-organized categories present any special problem either. To me, Category:Medical schools in California is the first step at making list of medical schools in the United States more navigable within states from an article by article level. Amerique^dialectics 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse merge. The consensus was to merge, and there appear to be no policy/guidelines arguments against merger. The category's creator offers no significant new evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you guys better apply this great deletionist logic universally. Here is a place you can start: Category:Law_schools_in_the_United_States. Amerique^dialectics 16:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• So per this deletion, Category:Law schools in Arkansas, Category:Law_schools_in_Colorado, Category:Law_schools_in_Delaware, Category:Law_schools_in_Idaho, Category:Law_schools_in_Iowa, just to begin with, are all in violation of WP:Overcategorization too, right? I mean, ABA accreditation standards are also universal, so there are no fundamental differences in the legal education received between states, except as some law schools may not offer courses in some other state's law, of course. So why should law schools be "overcategorized," especially if they are in states with fewer than 2.5 law schools!?! I had no idea this was such a widespread problem on Wikipedia before Scott Alter pointed it out to me. Amerique^dialectics 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a widespread problem. Every category is dealt with on an individual basis. I think that you would agree that most categories on Wikipedia contain more than 2 articles. If you look at all 53 types of universities and colleges in Category:Universities and colleges by type, you'll notice that only law schools are separated by state. The other 52 types are not separated by state. There is no "less than 2.5 articles per category is overcategorization rule." In fact, there is no rule about how many articles per category is too few. I'm not set on 2.5 as being the limit - that is just the average that would be in each medical school by state category. User:Dhartung mentioned previously that his "magic number" was 7/category. For some it is less, others more. My point is that if Category:Schools of medicine in the United States were broken down by state, almost all the subcategories would have far fewer than 7 categories, with the maximum of articles per category at 14 (for New York). I would call this overcategorization. In contrast, there are 259 potential law school articles (see law schools in the United States). There are 65 law schools listed in California (compared to 10 medical schools). I'm not saying whether or not I think breaking the law schools down by state is appropriate, but having 259 articles in one category is getting to be a lot. In Category:Law schools in the United States, there are far fewer 1 and 2 article categories than there would be in medical schools by state (in which case, most categories would only have a couple articles - a small minority having more than 7). Having separate subcategories for only a few states and not others is not appropriate. I'm not even sure I've seen this done on Wikipedia before. I'm not a deletionist - I'm in favor of all or none. In the case of Category:Schools of medicine in the United States (currently 113 school articles with a potential to max out at 154), I'm in favor of no subcategorization by state. --Scott Alter 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, you base a good deal of your argument on the presumption that because we have a subcat for one state, we must proceed to subcat them all by state. I reject that underlying assumption. We have one category with 9 members, certainly enough to have a category, and one with 100-odd members, which is certainly in the realm of arguably in need of subcategorization. I don't hold that it's a necessity in this case, but I wholly reject the reasoning that it's a violation for this category to exist. Yes, you can find this in many places, though I'm sure that "uniformists" like yourself clean them up when they find them. Is it a horrible problem? I guess I don't see it. --Dhartung | Talk 09:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse inasmuch as the CfD was appropriately run and correctly closed according to consensus.JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 12:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and subcats (restore|cache|CFD)

Seeing as how the consensus was overwhelmingly keep, and demon has admitted that he closed against consensus I seek to have this 'delete' close overturned. User:Veesicle 16:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Let us all sit down and have a nice cup of tea.

• Overturn ^demon's closing of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats as "delete" is one of the worst oversteps I've seen in some time. This discussion involves nearly 700 categories and I find it very hard to believe that anyone could read this discussion (4 delete/2 rename/25 keep) as a consensus for deletion. I strongly supported keeping these categories during the discussion, and I believe ^demon's close to be inappropriate. The discussion in no way favored deletion, the very policy noted as the reason for deletion was refuted as false within the discussion, and ^demon is far from nuetral, having nominated all of these categories for deletion just 4 months ago (COI, anyone?) It is not the job of the closing admin to interject their own opinion, effectively overriding the community's. This close should be overturned. - auburnpilot talk 16:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: All users who participated in the original discussion have been notified of this review. - auburnpilot talk 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Which, considering the 25 keep/4 delete result, might be considered as vote canvassing.--WaltCip 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was just waiting for somebody to make such an accusation. Contacting every editor in a discussion does not constitute vote stacking, though it does fall under the specific "friendly notice" aspect of WP:CANVASS. It's not my fault the majority of participates supported keeping the categories. - auburnpilot talk 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - demon's interpretation of policy differs from that of most of those participating in this discussion; no consensus was even approached, and his decision was inappropriate. --Orange Mike 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and admonish responsible administrator. I've deleted things in the past that I thought should be kept, and vice versa, because community consensus dictates the result. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Nom, Auburn, and Mike. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom: I'm surprised it's even come to this... Coldmachine^Talk 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and admonish. Deleting a category against consensus when there's a clear conflict of interest would seem to be a move designed to create WikiDrama, make people angry, and generally just increase hostility on the project. The nominator's deletion rationale was "only used for identification" and thus the argument that "it's used for collaboration" is obviously a valid counter-argument. WP:USEFUL is for content discussions. The criteria for including user categories is whether or not they are useful, and there was an incredibly strong consensus that they are. The bigger issue, is that admins should not be using the tools in cases of clear conflict of interest. --JayHenry 17:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom and above. The "prove it" principle doesn't wash. Mikebar 20:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per policy and precedent. Closing admin can and should take those into account when closing. --Kbdank71 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Amerique^dialectics 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Obvious and reasoned consensus to keep. Closing admin's opinion doesn't overrule everybody else's. ~ trialsanderrors 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Closer's rationale was correct in my view. Policy reflects a wider consensus than the accumulation of individual expressions of support, many of which were blithe in their expressions of support. While this will almost certainly & tediously become AfD "The Sequel", specific reference to the closer's reasoning would be useful. Eusebeus 18:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and admonish. Admin had a clear conflict of interest due to having previously nominated this category for deletion. This conflict negates any reasoning he has come up with to explain his actions. He is no longer an objective party and therefore should not have been involved in this closure. KnightLago 18:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and admonish that discussion should have resulted in "keep". Very few people voted to delete the categories, and people who wanted to keep them had good arguments on their side. Closing admin even admits they closed the discussion against consensus, and they shouldn't have been closing the discussion anyway. Hut 8.5 18:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - There are cases where closing admins may disregard consensus. This is not one of them. FCYTravis 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong comment - Consensus is not a vote! - And reasons of (paraphrasing): Harmless; I want it; I "think" it could be useful; I want mine, if you get yours; This was nominated before; How dare you nominate "my" category; Misc. personal attacks; Misc. presumptions of reasons for the nomination; This is just an attack of deletionists; The "rules" don't apply to userspace; and on, and on. - Does anyone sincerely consider these valid reasons to "keep"? Also, personal identification with something is not a valid use of the category system. If you want to note something about yourself, a userpage notice (such as a userbox) is fine, there is no need for a category grouping. And noone has yet shown how membership in these specific categories (the "by alma mater" ones), are useful for collaboration. See also "the zodiac rationale", discussed previously at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 10, and noted by that closer. And that's also why we didn't just rename these categories to "intrested in", as noted by ^demon in closing, since that would be miscategorising Wikipedians. So in other words, there's been at least 2 years of precedent overall consensus for this, it's just when a larger category in nominated that the WP:ILIKEIT/"IWANTMINE" appears in numbers. And when a closer closes contrary to "numbers", it comes before DRV. I'm sure ^demon expected this, I know "I" did, when I saw the close. But "doing what's right" shouldn't be prevented by knowing that those with WP:OWN issues will oppose your "right" action. See: The very first principle at User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. (And I might offer #7 and #8, as well...) - jc37 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• The first sign of a weak argument is a quote of Jimbo Wales. Alma mater cats are nothing like zodiac cats, and your characterization of the discussion as nothing more than personal attacks and "I like it" type votes is pure nonsense. The bottom line is the ^demon ignored consensus, by his own admission, and ignored those of us who clearly stated we've used these for collaboration. You seem to still be under the misconception that these are being used as some status symbol, and simply noting my affiliation with a University does not aid in collaboration. Somebody must have a way to find me, and my affiliation, which these categories accomplish. - auburnpilot talk 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Somebody must have a way to find me, and my affiliation..." - Why? - jc37 19:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Either you misread what I wrote, or I wrote it poorly (the latter is more likely). What I meant is that for effective collaboration related to a user's affiliation, there must be a way for somebody to identify and find a user related to that university. In other words, a note on a user page doesn't aid collaboration (what are the chances I'll stumble across a userpage of a Wikipedian who went to UGA when I need one), whereas categories allow for Wikipedians to find and contact other editors who have relevant knowledge of a topic. Regardless, I believe this is a bit outside the purpose of a DRV. - auburnpilot talk 19:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• You commented, I asked for clarification. Seem appropriate to me. So your answer is: "...for effective collaboration related to a user's affiliation..."? - jc37 19:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Never said is wasn't appropriate. The reason I believe they should be kept remains the same as during the deletion discussion (where this discussion was appropriate, but isn't here). If I need a source of information related to a university, I can find a user related to that university by use of these cats. For example, a user requested that I take and provide images of Beard-Eaves-Memorial Coliseum, knowing that I am a student of Auburn University. I took the photos, uploaded them, and they are now used on several articles on this project and others. Collaboration. - auburnpilot talk 19:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Could you provide a link to that request/response? - jc37 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I honestly have no idea when it was, where it was, who it was, or why the request was made. It could have been because I have auburn in my name, was editing an auburn related page, or telepathy. I apologize if I implied I had direct knowledge that it was associated with the category; that wasn't my intention. - auburnpilot talk 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, ok. So basically, you associate these categories to Category:Wikipedians by location. That is, as useful for gaining images, and "insider"/knowledgeable information? - jc37 20:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I will not be responding to you any further. With every response, you attempt to twist my words into something else. I am not going to waste my day responding to childish arguments. - auburnpilot talk 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, I am trying to understand the meaning of what you're trying to convey. If it's merely IWANTIT, and the rest is a smokescreen, fine, so be it. But sometimes there's a kernel of truth that someone isn't conveying in the way that they'd like, or in a way that's being understood by others. So I'm doing my utmost to give you the benefit of the doubt, and figure out what you're trying to convey about the "how" of it being useful for collaboration. And incidentally, "childish arguments"? Right. I think you could do with a bit of WP:AGF yourself. (And please, feel free to quote WP:AAGF to me...) I'm trying to give you a chance to explain yourself fully, and you're being belligerant. Your preconceived notions about me are seriously not helping you here. - jc37 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• AuburnPilot, you admitted at the UCFD that you have not been contacted for either your affiliation with Auburn or for your help because you're a pilot. How can you say these aid in collaboration when you have no proof that it does? Do you want to keep them around "just in case"? --Kbdank71 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What I've said was that I cannot prove anybody has ever contacted me because of a category, but I have personally used these categories and others. As I stated elsewhere, I've never gone to another user's talk page and stated "Hey, I found you in Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: XYZ, let's collaborate" but I have contacted users who I've found through these cats (I suspect the case to be the same for other users). That's how I know. Do you have proof that these don't aid in collaboration? Further, I find your question "Do you want to keep them around "just in case"?" to be rather odd; if a category has any potential to aid in collaboration, why would you want to delete it? - auburnpilot talk 19:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Jc37, do you think it is a conflict of interest for an admin to close a CFD debate when he has previously nominated the same category for deletion? KnightLago 19:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Often Wikipedians wear different "hats" when taking an action. The "hat" the user was wearing was that of closer, not nominator. If you feel that there was a COI, please feel free to bring it up at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents. (I note that there is already a discussion there.) - jc37 20:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I tried to AGF, but after looking at the facts, good faith is hard to find. The admin nominated this category for deletion, and it was kept. A few months later it was nominated again, and he closed it admittedly against consensus. That seems to be a pretty clear case of personal views conflicting with administrator responsibilities to me. KnightLago 20:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Either we nuke all user categories (which I don't think is all that bad of an idea), or we leave the ones that are helpful for collaboration. The consensus was unbelievably overwhelming that this category is useful for collaboration, and that's hardly difficult to believe or understand. Last I checked, we're here to write an encyclopedia. If the community believes this category contributes to that end, then it stays. Period. Clear overstep and subversion of deletion process. Additionally, as others have noted, it is incredibly inappropriate for demon to have closed it given his/her past participation, and it makes me seriously question their judgment. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I have used this category to ask other more experienced Aggies around here for help and guidance as I may or may not know them. On a few Aggie related articles, I have seen a quite a few people with the category on their user pages collaborate, extend, revise, and improve articles. Quite a few are now FA/A class and have been on the front page. spryde | talk 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

On further comment, I know I saw the A&M userbox before I even knew there was a Wikiproject related to Texas A&M. spryde | talk 20:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I am concerned that the decision making process may have been tainted. clariosophic 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The discussion here is not about the category itself but about the closer's decision. I believe that the closing administrator seriously erred both in his application of policy and in closing a discussion in which he was a participant. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 21:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Arbitrarily picking the side of an XfD that you disagree with and deciding to hold their arguments to an unreasonable level of epistemological certainly is really not called for in XfD decisions. No one has proven beyond theoretical epistemological uncertainty that these categories will be useful. Yet an overwhelming consensus agreed that the categories were substantially useful, or at least that there was a reasonable likelihood of them being so. There's no need to make everyone dig out a thousand old diffs. Any UCfD precedent-based argument supporting the close is severely weakened, perhaps to the point of negligence, by the large size and balanced representation of this UCfD relative to most others in recent months which have been driven by a small handful of specific editors, together not representative of the community's views. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Wikipedia works by consensus. An administrator should not use his or her interpretation of policies and guideline to ignore such an obvious display of consensus as was displayed in this case at CSD, even if the consensus is based on bad arguments. Our policies and guidelines can not be interpreted by a machine. We rely on consensus to interpret them, not on the views of one administrator. --Bduke 21:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I won't comment on the appropriateness of the close, but probably all user cats other than those associated with something that indicates collaboration ought to go; you've managed to delete all the sexual minorities categories, now the "my diploma's better than yours" categories go, probably a loss we can live with. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • We can live without them... but why would be want to? — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per everyone. The amount of effort that seems to go into preventing humans from behaving like social beings on Wikipedia is beyond my understanding. SparsityProblem 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per everyone above. Closing admins should seek to assess the serious consensus in regards the application of the policies to the matter at hand, not impose their own personal interpretation of the policies and ignore consensus. It is also extremely unwise to be the closing admin on an issue you have proposed in the past - yes there may have been good faith but closing admins must strive to avoid being seen to be biased, especially when they themselves acknowledge that the close decision is likely to surprise many. Timrollpickering 23:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse Consensus in a smaller context such as an XfD cannot override consensus in a larger context, in this case WP:NOT. WP:CONSENSUS makes this quite clear. Those eager to cite that policy should reread it before making frivolous demands of admonishment. The closer did the right thing and frankly I think that those who were quick to take this issue to ANI before giving the closer a chance to respond (some admins do have a life you know) are the ones who should be admonished for violating WP:AGF. If thinking so makes me an evil deletionist then so be it. EconomicsGuy 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but neither was that a vote. It was a discussion and the decision was taken against the preponderance of the considered views which were expressed. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Closed against consensus. Pretty straightforward. There is no overarching policy to justify this close. Tradition, precedent, and personal opinion should never be involved in the decision to choose to delete. (disclaimer: my opinion at the xfd was to keep the cats) --- RockMFR 00:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and admonish per KnightLago. Also, please remember that the purpose of reviewing the deletion is not to, once again, rate the category, but rather to assess the process of deletion that occurred. —Noetic Sage 00:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and rethink the entire basis for how UCFD is operating. There's essentially no governing policy or guideline for user categories at all, and apparently, some resistance to ever having one. (Some of them could in theory be nominated for being "nonsense", empty, or divisive, but that's not in practise what this process if busying itself with.) So basically what we have is a series of arguments from ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT, and knotty series of alleged precedents, that no-one has even attempted to refactor into a coherent description of good practice in this area. (Many of these "precedents" being established in patchily-attended "votes", what's more.) As resolving these issues is hardly an urgent matter, this seems to be a recipe for creating a lot of heat out of nowhere, with little prospect of much in the way of light. Certainly, unless and until some reasonable provisions are put in place for what is and isn't appropriate in user categories, "whimsical closes" are the last thing we need. Alai 01:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, closed against consensus, and I'm not especially thrilled that almost 700 categories could get deleted "submarine style", as it were, without any attempt to gain wider consensus, shoy (^words _words) 02:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, and seek a review of the entire process by which a very large number of user categories have been eliminated by a small group on this discussion page since approximately June of this year. I was one of the original votes to delete, and although I stated it poorly, my intention with that delete was to increase the quorum of interested editors in the process. To be clear, my argument is not just with this one case, but with the policies and process that has led up to it.Michael J Swassing 04:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: As a participant in the CFD discussion, I was shocked at the result. I'm not especially surprised, afterward, to read that the closing admin had previously nominated the same categories for deletion. So we have: (a) decision process corrupted by COI, (b) disregard for overwhelming consensus, and (c) militant deletionism pursued against common sense with pedantic single-mindedness. This kind of episode unnecessarily erodes the commitment and good will of valuable members of our community. Kestenbaum 06:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if you disagree with the closer please do try to respect WP:CIVIL. You are not doing your side of the dispute any favors by resorting to incivility and bad faith assumptions. That kind of attitude is going to backfire so don't do it to begin with. EconomicsGuy 12:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Ok lynch mob, here I am. I'll make a statement and once again you can rip it apart, take it out of context and generally convolute everything I'm about to say. First and foremost, I ask everyone to please assume good faith. Just because you think there is a conflict of interest doesn't mean there actually is one. Did anyone ever ask me about my nomination of those awhile ago? Nope? Oh, so we just started accusing? Ok then, for the first and only time: I don't even remember nominating those. I've deleted over 20000 things, nominated dozens upon dozens of things for UCFD (several mutli-noms as well), MFD, TFD, you name it. I can't even remember half the pagenames of crap from Wikipedia: space I've MFD'd within the last month. I saw this debate and decided to close it. Simple as that. Now, complain about my rationale all you want, that I can take. But please before you assume and start accusing me, at least have the common decency to ask me. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - The Keep comments were all WP:ILIKEIT and "It's harmless." I believe ^demon made a valid argument that the remaining Rename comments were inappropriate due to pushing users into categories they may not wish to be a part of. With that out of the way, the Delete comments had valid policy reasons and a stronger argument. I see no procedural error here to overturn the decision. -- Kesh 13:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  This is incorrect. The keep comments were not as you have described them. The only policy reason given in support of deletion was WP:NOT - specifically, the line "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration". It was argued that these categories were being used for collaboration. --- RockMFR 14:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Save us 222 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Save us.222 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Save Us.222 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Save Us.X29 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

SAVE US.222 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Save Us 222 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

There's some controversy on Chris Jericho's Wikipedia page about people constantly adding information about his rumored return. These "Save_Us.222" promos have been airing on WWE programming for 2 months. I created the Save Us 222 page with the hopes of providing information on the topic but it was quickly up for deletion. While I understand Wikipedia is not meant for speculation or rumors, the promos are a huge storyline...At the very least, I suggest at least redirecting the "Save_Us.222" page to either Chris Jericho or WWE so that people stop creating this page. I think WWE fans are coming to Wikipedia looking for answers about this storyline, and a redirect page would probably deter users from recreating a speculation page. 68.55.189.254 03:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE There also is User Save Us.222 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) -- Jreferee t/c 13:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Have any news sources run stories on Save Us 222? -- Jreferee t/c 06:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• None that I have heard from, other than on the wrestling insider sites.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rederick (talk • contribs)
• There has been gobs of coverage on professional wrestling web sites, which should always be taken with a pound of salt. Most of these sites have no journalistic integrity, deal in rumors and speculation, and just as often make stuff up and rip off more credible sites than care about accuracy. There are two or three reliable pay sites out there with some general journalistic standards that have done reporting on the issue (pwinsiderelite.com, for instance), but none have been able to say that the videos definitely represent Jericho (and even if they could, it would be off un-named sources), nor have any definitively reported on a return date (and all the rumored return dates, at least four so far, have passed). I have never seen any legitimate, non-wrestling related coverage of the campaign, which is really quite minor in scope (one muddled less-than-30 second commercial per WWE program, and now t-shirts, apparently). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep deleted and then redirect to the wrestler linked to it once it is revealed I've made my reasons very well known since I was one who proposed the deletion of this page. Saying that Chris Jericho, or anyone is speculation, and redirecting to Chris's or anyone elses page is also considered speculation. This will no longer be the case when the person behind the videos is known. --Raderick 06:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• With every single instance of anyone creating a save_us.222 page, it has always been nothing but speculation and ham-fisted fan analysis, and there has never been one bit of verifiable third party sources. WWE has never said the save_us.222 promos are for Jericho, and despite doing a nationwide book tour and numerous media appearances, Jericho has never said that he is connected to the campaign, nor that he is even returning for sure (although most fans, including this one, believe otherwise). There has never been any notable independent third party media coverage of the commercials. And because of over zealous fans who have no concern for our policies on original research and verifiability, the article on Chris Jericho has had to be protected (with the exception of a day or two where I mistakenly thought I could give folks the benefit of the doubt) since September 22 because of this issue. The only thing that will be served by unprotecting these pages will be creating a mass forum of terrible analysis and rumors. The only thing that can even be verifiably stated on the campaign is "Save_us.222 is a series of viral commercials started by WWE in September." Thats it. Wikipedia is not a rumor board, we have policies for this kind of thing for damn good reason. No redirects, no recreations, leave salted for the good of the Encyclopedia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted until such time as something is actually confirmed about the whole thing. At the moment, there's zero documented information about this campaign; the wrestling gossip sheets have tied it to Jericho, but knowing the WWE, it could turn into just about anything before it wraps up. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and SALT all attempts at recreation - Serious OR issues over a viral marketing campaign that has no notability claim. -- Gogo Dodo 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and come back here with an article in userspace before another end run around the community's decision. Carlossuarez46 22:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and salting; eventual creation of a redir page to whoever it turns out to be; all per Raderick and Gogo Dodo. --Orange Mike 02:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and salt until it is revealed who SAVE_US.222 is meant to be then redirect to that article. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse with salting. The protection can be dropped later if needed although that is not likely. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 12:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)