Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 2

Category:Fictional characters who time travel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)

Admin originally closed CfD with the claim that becauset Spiderman had been improperly added, that only a list could prevent improper category placement. After having it pointed out that this is design feature that applies to all categories in Wikipedia, the admin has taken the fall back position of "recreated content" as a justification for deletion. The consensus at CfD among those who offered a policy reason was for retention. Deletion arguments revolved largely around the supposed superiority of lists over categories (in violation of WP:CLN, which clearly encourages coexistence of lists and categories), or the circular logic that this category could never be recreated because it had been deleted earlier. As this category had been changed and provided clear inclusion criteria, these arguments are not valid rationalizations for deletion. Regardless of the results of this DRV, the entire CfD process needs to have greater involvement from the community as a whole, and not just from the same three or four editors and admin who have imposed their arbitrarily restrictive definition of what categories should be. Alansohn (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn No arguments presented a policy justification for deletion other than the circular argument that a similar category had been previously deleted. Admin has already been forced to retract the bulk of the proffered justification for deletion, acknowledging that the argument of the supposed superiority of lists over categories would effectively gut the entire category structure in Wikipedia and no other policy justification has been offered in its place. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you nominated you are already assumed to have voted. Would you mind refactoring to to bea comment? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. The plea for undeletion neglects to mention that the category under discussion was previously deleted in this CFD, and presents a straw man mischaracterization of the closing admin's rationale, and the arguments made at both CFDs, both at the original CFD and the most recent one, regarding why lists were preferred in this circumstance. Postdlf (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer. Recreation of deleted content. Which, I might add, was not the "fallback position" of the close, it was the main reason. Alansohn is correct in that it is wrong to say that any deleted category cannot be recreated. It can, but there must be consensus to do so. Consensus can change, but in this situation, the consensus did not change, and therefore this category should not have been recreated. --Kbdank71 02:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - When I nominated this, I was aware of one similar category that has already been listified. After being opened, however, Otto4711 noted that this was a more direct recreation of another deleted category. Had I been aware of that, I (or someone else) could just as easily have speedied the cat, without nomination. And as Kbdank71 notes above, the discussion itself showed no consensus to support recreation. (The category also had other issues, but these reasons should be enough for an endorse of the closure here.) - jc37 08:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Postdlf. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because it meets the speedy criteria. Hiding T 12:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - typed up a comment, thought I'd saved it but I guess not. There was no procedural error in deleting this as recreated content. And nominator is once again misrepresenting the comments of a number of editors in this and several recent similar CFDs. No one appears to be suggestion that lists are inherently superior to categories. What we are saying is that under some circumstances one method of information grouping is better than another. WP:CLN clearly recognizes this when it states The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and whether one method or multiple methods should be used will depend on what is appropriate under the circumstances. This reflects widespread practical consensus from across the project and nominator either does not understand or refuses to believe this to be the case. Otto4711 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Not liking the outcome does not make it invalid, sorry. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Seems to have been a logical decision based on lack of consensus to re-create and there are no procedural flaws. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BlackHawk (band) albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)

I listed this for CFD back in September and it was closed as no consensus to move. Frankly, I think this was a wrong close, since a.) the parent page is BlackHawk, not BlackHawk (band), and b.) I feel that either way, the (band) is redundant at the end because "BlackHawk" is unambiguous here (compare, say, Category:Cream albums vs. Cream (band), for one). Yes, I moved the page against consensus, but since the move, other users such as User:Ericorbit have expressed consensus to get rid of "band" in the category. See this diff, in which Ericorbit even says "categories don't even need 'band'". This discussion isn't about my bold pagemove, or my bold category move which got reverted (I created a new category at Category:BlackHawk albums and asked User:DragonflySixtyseven to delete the old category; Dragonfly approved this bold move on IRC), it's mostly about the redundancy of the (band) at the end. These albums are irrefutably by a band, so I don't see why there has to be a (band) at the end. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer. The main reason it didn't go through at CFD was because several editors were concerned that the main article, BlackHawk, was moved from BlackHawk (band) after getting no support for the move (see Talk:BlackHawk). I asked TenPoundHammer to get consensus for the page move and I'd take care of the category. After pointing me to one user that posted at his talk page and a discussion at IRC which I have no access to as proof of consensus, we're here. I'll repeat: get consensus for the page move and I'll strike this endorsement. --Kbdank71 19:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the procedure described for a category rename is not bold but explicitly out-of-process - emptying an existing category and creating a new one. I am completely sure that the band should be at BlackHawk (band) and would prefer all associated categories to follow the same pattern. Occuli (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment doesn't look like a DRV issue, no process issues have been raised, but disagreement with the result something DRV explicitly isn't for. No broken process, misinterpretation of policy etc. issues. The underlying issue sounds like a broader question best discussed and general consensus reached in another forum. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why all the contributions I have made to Wikipedia have been removed? They all related to members of the 1970 Brazilian football team, a subject which - I think I can modestly say - I know more about than anyone else in the English speaking world. I am the author of the best-selling book The Beautiful Team In Search of the 1970 Brazilians and have met, interviewed and written about these footballers for the past ten years. I have a website www.beautifulteam.net to which I linked my contributions but cannot see that this falls foul of your rules. Essentially I have more unique, copyrighted, biographical information on my site than can be fitted on to Wikipedia. By visiting my site your readers will be able to get more information as well as view videos of the players in their pomp. I was intending to build biographies of each of the members of the team on Wikipedia. None of the current ones - apart from Pele - are any good at all. (I thought I had added something new to Pele's page on the derivation of his name, but that was taken down too.) I see little point in doing so now. Thanks Garry Jenkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garryjenkins (talk • contribs) 17:56, October 2, 2008

It doesn't appear that you have have any deleted contributions, so what page exactly are you objecting to the deletion of? Please note that removal of information from pages if not under the purview of DRV. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edits appear to have mostly been links to the website noted, which were removed as self-promotional. Definitely not a DRV issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as a non-DRV issue. A note to the nom that anything you can add may be edited or removed, please read this page...and actually, this one, too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars marathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Closed as no consensus. However most keep arguments seem to be WP:ILIKEIT. The results were 5 keeps (2 weak), 2 merge, 5 delete. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sustain Some of the delete arguments were pretty weak also, & merge is a keep; reasonable conclusion. Since it was no consensus even after a relist, no reason not to try again in 1 or 2 months. It hardly ever makes sense to appeal a no consensus close. DGG (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was non-admin closed. No admin to discuss it with. I was simply looking for consensus on the closing, something that a discussion with the editor that closed would not have accomplished. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse As the closing editor, I didn't see anything close to approaching a consensus and even after relisting I didn't see a consensus build itself. It can be relisted in a month or two (not five days from when the last AfD was closed) but if there's no consensus then there's nothing to appeal really. treelo _radda 18:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Non admins are not supposed to close any AFDs where the outcome is not crýstal cut and this is clearly one that should have been left for an admin to evaluate. That said, sources were provided in the debate and discussion centred around whether the scope of the article fully matched the citations with no serious challenge to the validity of the sources. To my mind this suggests that the article exhibits notability but has content issues that need fixing. That isn't what AFDs are there to fix and, in fact, I would have been happy with a keep close to this discussion. I therefore endorse the close because I'm an evil deletionist vandal but I strongly advise the closing editor to be more carefúl where they practise their AFD closes and avoid anything controversial. DRV can be a nasty and unfriendly place to have your decision-mking dissected. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Given the AfD I don't see how any close but No Consensus could be supported, but I also echo Spartaz above that "No Consensus" AfD's generally and this AfD in particular are not good candidates for Non-admin closures. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. No need to drag this on any longer. Consensus reached. I withdraw the DRV. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]