Polly Prentice – Copyvios are non-negotiable. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Polly Prentice (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` UNDELETE_REASON 66.99.2.103 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC) This was deleted twice on CSD:A7 grounds. The article written in own words was not copied verbatim.[reply] Endorse deletion. The second (October 10) creation still has whole sentences and clauses in common with the summary here, as well as following its general shape. Writing it in your own words doesn't mean changing some words to synonyms, it means writing it from scratch. Chick Bowen 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - The deletion per CSD G12 copyvio applied. The living actor playing the fictional TV character gets importance/significance from that. In this case, CSD A7 probably applies since a importance/significance of fictional TV character would seem to be something separate and apart from the TV show. In any event, the topic probably would not survive AfD since there is little independent reliable source material (see Google books). -- Jreferee t/c 06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Polly Prentice – Copyvios are non-negotiable. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

UNDELETE_REASON 66.99.2.103 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC) This was deleted twice on CSD:A7 grounds. The article written in own words was not copied verbatim.[reply]

Endorse deletion. The second (October 10) creation still has whole sentences and clauses in common with the summary here, as well as following its general shape. Writing it in your own words doesn't mean changing some words to synonyms, it means writing it from scratch. Chick Bowen 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - The deletion per CSD G12 copyvio applied. The living actor playing the fictional TV character gets importance/significance from that. In this case, CSD A7 probably applies since a importance/significance of fictional TV character would seem to be something separate and apart from the TV show. In any event, the topic probably would not survive AfD since there is little independent reliable source material (see Google books). -- Jreferee t/c 06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ubuntu Christian Edition – Withdrawn by nom – Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ubuntu Christian Edition (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD#2`)` This appears to be an example where the people in favor of keeping didn't know what arguments to make. In particular, there were many WP:ILIKEIT keeps. Under that basis Alkivar closed the matter as merge/redirect. However, the topic does have multiple, independent reliable sources. Examples include [1] and [2]. Alkivar also brought up the concern that the article as it stood had serious puffery and COI issues. However, I would be willing to pare down the text to the verifiable NPOV material. Note that the relevant AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubuntu Christian Edition (2nd nomination), since there was a previous AfD that closed as keep. JoshuaZ 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Nomination for DRV withdrawn. I'm now convinced that we don't need a separate article on this topic. JoshuaZ 20:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment from closer For the record, I am not entirely opposed to recreation of said article, I just feel the current time it is not worthy. I am not convinced the subject is noteworthy as a minor variant distro, and as much of the article body was essentially a duplication of content from the main umbrella distro Ubuntu its placement in the List of Ubuntu variants is more appropriate. Its ranking on neutral site DistroWatch is below the top 30. Ranking for the last 6 months places it at #31, Ranking for the last 3 months places it at #35, Ranking for the last month is #49. If anything this shows its popularity was merely temporary and already waning. I think its placement in the list of variants is more appropriate until such time that it actually establishes its popularity. Linux distributions appear and die virtually overnight, its as easy to create as a band... picking a name and a website. Perhaps we should instead be setting some sort of criteria by which we can determine a distributions value and include it at notability (software) or something? ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Well, the most naive criterion would be meeting WP:N which it does so... JoshuaZ 02:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Restore per JoshuaZ. Consensus is two Afds in two months was two keep, Alkivar acted against consensus, also showed poor judgment in salting his own decision. VivianDarkbloom 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] comment Actually, the salting made sense given the repeated edit warring/attempts to recreate. JoshuaZ 23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - No consensus seem to be the consensus. The close deviation from the discussion does not seem to be supported by policy. Also, Ubuntu (Linux distribution) makes no mention of Ubuntu Christian Edition, contrary to the closing statement that the article was duplicated from the article on Ubuntu itself. Substantial new information includes information from Network World, ExtremeTech.com, and U.S. Catholic. Of course, if behaviour regarding the article makes it unlikely that the article would meet WP:A, that would be a different story.-- Jreferee t/c 07:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] No its on List of Ubuntu-based distributions instead, which is the spin off from the variants section of the main article. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. The rationale was valid, and should remain closed this way until better third party sources become available. RFerreira 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] And what logic makes Linux.com, U.S. Catholic and ExtremeTech not good enough sources? JoshuaZ 19:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Personally I don't feel reviews are a valid grounds for claiming notability, sites review material all the time, not every product reviewed is notable however. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] If the reviewing source says something that confers notability, for example (and purely hypothetical, in this instance)"10 million units sold" or "used by the state department", wouldn't that review then be verification of notability under WP:V? - perfectblue 14:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thats a statement of fact from a reliable secondary source, that is good grounds for a notability claim. A mere review of a products functionality, neither asserts nor proves notability IMO. If these reviews said something like you stated, we wouldn't be here at drv, because I wouldn't have closed it as I did. Remember, I'm an inclusionist, I don't believe in deleting stuff lightly, and in this case I merged the valid data. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment from original nominator As per my remarks on the original debate, I don't believe there's enough to be said about it to deserve its own article - the primary reason for merging. Nobody has actually responded to this by saying it is different enough to deserve a page distinct from the other minor Ubuntu variations - see my replies later in the thread. That's the primary reason for the merge, and hasn't been addressed by anyone in the AFD nor here on the DRV - what can be said aside from the fact it's Ubuntu with a few non-notable applications bundled, hence the reason for the merge? Could a full article be written that's more than a couple of paragraphs long, and would go beyond what could be said in the merged List of Ubuntu-based distributions? I say no, and that's hardly been addressed by those arguing keep. Whatsmore, an AFD "only" 2 months after the last one is hardly bad form - please WP:AGF. I personally endorse until the primary deletion reasoning is actually addressed, and someone can give a good reason that it deserves its own page beyond WP:ILIKEIT. -Halo 17:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] In case any one wonders how I stand... Endorse closure as original deleting admin. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure It is privilege and duty of the closing admin to weight the arguments given - and it seems to be alot of arguments were basically WP:ILIKEIT. I see no fault in Alkivar's closure. Charon X/talk 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Er yes. I'm not arguing that they weren't ILIKEITs. My point was that there's a much better argument to be made for keeping the article than was made in the AfD. An article shouldn't be deleted simply because the people who wrote it aren't familiar with which arguments fly at AfDs and which don't. JoshuaZ 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] The article should, however, be deleted because it's a minor variation of Ubuntu, where everything that can be said would fit inside a paragraph of another page, hence the redirect. -Halo 19:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ubuntu Christian Edition – Withdrawn by nom – Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This appears to be an example where the people in favor of keeping didn't know what arguments to make. In particular, there were many WP:ILIKEIT keeps. Under that basis Alkivar closed the matter as merge/redirect. However, the topic does have multiple, independent reliable sources. Examples include [1] and [2]. Alkivar also brought up the concern that the article as it stood had serious puffery and COI issues. However, I would be willing to pare down the text to the verifiable NPOV material. Note that the relevant AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubuntu Christian Edition (2nd nomination), since there was a previous AfD that closed as keep. JoshuaZ 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Nomination for DRV withdrawn. I'm now convinced that we don't need a separate article on this topic. JoshuaZ 20:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closer For the record, I am not entirely opposed to recreation of said article, I just feel the current time it is not worthy. I am not convinced the subject is noteworthy as a minor variant distro, and as much of the article body was essentially a duplication of content from the main umbrella distro Ubuntu its placement in the List of Ubuntu variants is more appropriate. Its ranking on neutral site DistroWatch is below the top 30. Ranking for the last 6 months places it at #31, Ranking for the last 3 months places it at #35, Ranking for the last month is #49. If anything this shows its popularity was merely temporary and already waning. I think its placement in the list of variants is more appropriate until such time that it actually establishes its popularity. Linux distributions appear and die virtually overnight, its as easy to create as a band... picking a name and a website. Perhaps we should instead be setting some sort of criteria by which we can determine a distributions value and include it at notability (software) or something? ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the most naive criterion would be meeting WP:N which it does so... JoshuaZ 02:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per JoshuaZ. Consensus is two Afds in two months was two keep, Alkivar acted against consensus, also showed poor judgment in salting his own decision. VivianDarkbloom 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Actually, the salting made sense given the repeated edit warring/attempts to recreate. JoshuaZ 23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - No consensus seem to be the consensus. The close deviation from the discussion does not seem to be supported by policy. Also, Ubuntu (Linux distribution) makes no mention of Ubuntu Christian Edition, contrary to the closing statement that the article was duplicated from the article on Ubuntu itself. Substantial new information includes information from Network World, ExtremeTech.com, and U.S. Catholic. Of course, if behaviour regarding the article makes it unlikely that the article would meet WP:A, that would be a different story.-- Jreferee t/c 07:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No its on List of Ubuntu-based distributions instead, which is the spin off from the variants section of the main article. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. The rationale was valid, and should remain closed this way until better third party sources become available. RFerreira 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what logic makes Linux.com, U.S. Catholic and ExtremeTech not good enough sources? JoshuaZ 19:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally I don't feel reviews are a valid grounds for claiming notability, sites review material all the time, not every product reviewed is notable however. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the reviewing source says something that confers notability, for example (and purely hypothetical, in this instance)"10 million units sold" or "used by the state department", wouldn't that review then be verification of notability under WP:V? - perfectblue 14:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a statement of fact from a reliable secondary source, that is good grounds for a notability claim. A mere review of a products functionality, neither asserts nor proves notability IMO. If these reviews said something like you stated, we wouldn't be here at drv, because I wouldn't have closed it as I did. Remember, I'm an inclusionist, I don't believe in deleting stuff lightly, and in this case I merged the valid data. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from original nominator As per my remarks on the original debate, I don't believe there's enough to be said about it to deserve its own article - the primary reason for merging. Nobody has actually responded to this by saying it is different enough to deserve a page distinct from the other minor Ubuntu variations - see my replies later in the thread. That's the primary reason for the merge, and hasn't been addressed by anyone in the AFD nor here on the DRV - what can be said aside from the fact it's Ubuntu with a few non-notable applications bundled, hence the reason for the merge? Could a full article be written that's more than a couple of paragraphs long, and would go beyond what could be said in the merged List of Ubuntu-based distributions? I say no, and that's hardly been addressed by those arguing keep. Whatsmore, an AFD "only" 2 months after the last one is hardly bad form - please WP:AGF. I personally endorse until the primary deletion reasoning is actually addressed, and someone can give a good reason that it deserves its own page beyond WP:ILIKEIT. -Halo 17:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case any one wonders how I stand... Endorse closure as original deleting admin. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure It is privilege and duty of the closing admin to weight the arguments given - and it seems to be alot of arguments were basically WP:ILIKEIT. I see no fault in Alkivar's closure. CharonX/talk 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er yes. I'm not arguing that they weren't ILIKEITs. My point was that there's a much better argument to be made for keeping the article than was made in the AfD. An article shouldn't be deleted simply because the people who wrote it aren't familiar with which arguments fly at AfDs and which don't. JoshuaZ 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article should, however, be deleted because it's a minor variation of Ubuntu, where everything that can be said would fit inside a paragraph of another page, hence the redirect. -Halo 19:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Sexuality and gender identification categories – Deletions endorsed. Prior deletions of other (more "mainstream") gender/sexuality categories do belie the accusations of bias here. The consensus below endorsed the uCfD determination that these "status" categories (like "signs of the zodiac") do not contribute value to the encyclopedia, and may harm it by introducing factionalism. – Xoloz 13:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Transsexual Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Category:Genderqueer Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Category:Queer Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Category:Lesbian Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Category:Bear cub Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Category:Gay Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Category:Lipstick lesbian Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Category:Femme Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Category:Heteroflexible Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Category:Homoflexible Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Category:Bisexual Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Category:Polyamorous Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Category:Pansexual Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Category:Asexual Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` The ucfd was closed 5 days after it started, but no consensus had been reached. And considering that these have been up for deletion many times, I didn't see any real sign that consensus has changed. Closing admin said "The result of the debate was delete all based on strength of arguments." I'd like a little more time for consensus to be reached and arguments on both sides to be presented. Kolindigo 15:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and Keep These categories have been here 2 years and now someone's "out to get them", having also listed Category:LGBT Wikipedians for deletion once all the cats above were deleted. All of these sexuality and gender identification cats being deleted were against WP:POINT in that the mass deletion was an abuse of process, failure to assume good faith, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, gaming the system and just flat out disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion on strength of arguments. "We just did this" is not a reason to keep. --Kbdank71 16:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] I didn't argue "we just did this". I argued that the deletions were "against WP:POINT in that the mass deletion was an abuse of process, failure to assume good faith, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, gaming the system and just flat out disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point." -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, you're right. Your exact words were "You should be ashamed of yourself for even bringing these up for deletion again." You also said "it's only reasonable to assume that if these were deleted then every cat InsertYourOwnTitle Wikipedians would/should be deleted as well.", another non-reason to keep. You did not, in fact, touch upon any of the POINT, AGF, Abuse of process, nor did you explain here why any of that is true. --Kbdank71 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I said that on the actual CfD discussion. This isn't the actual CfD discussion. Review is to expound on why, and that's what I'm touching on here. Further, I don't need to touch upon any of the POINT, AGF, Abuse of process, nor do I need to explain here why any of that is true because people can go read the text for themselves at [WP:POINT]], abuse of process, assume good faith, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and gaming the system. I'm not here to re-write what's already been written but to point it out. ;) -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] This is DRV, not CFD take two. Second, if I was going to say overturn because the nomination was abuse of process, or POINT, or whatever, I would explain why, or I'd be prepared to have my opinion discounted. Anyone can read the policies, but that doesn't tell them why you think they apply here. --Kbdank71 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] If they can't read the policies and comprehend why without me having to hold their hand, then I guess that's between them and their jesus because that's a problem above and beyond me. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak endorse based on the strength of the arguments. It's kind of borderline between delete and no consensus but to be realistic most of those arguing to keep this were basing their arguments on precedent alone. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. The arguments for 'keep' consisted primarily of arguments based in precedent alone or in the principle of self-identification for its own sake (which is not what user categories are for). On balance, the arguments for deletion were not really rebutted and claims that the categories are useful were not accompanied by any substantial explanation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - while the number of persons on both sides of the issue was equal, the strength of the arguments was not. Most arguments of keep varied between "bias against the categories (or their members)" and "we've already discussed this", neither of which I acknowledged as a strong argument. Rationale for this is that 1) Decisions have been made to delete all sorts of categories, including Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians, which was actually decided 3 months prior and 2) consensus can change. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn based on prior precedent as well as lack of consensus in this CfD. There's really no need to be excessively stringent with matters like these. The benefits are unsubstantial (fosters community somewhat, may occasionally be useful for finding editors interested in a specific field, might be useful for demographic analysis, etc.), but there's essentially nothing to weigh them against. The rationale for WP:HARMLESS is (slightly ironically) that there tend to be subtle harms associated with inclusion of articles, like marginal detriments to navigation or managability; in the case of these categories there really aren't any non-negligible negative ramifications (e.g. if this category is incomplete, its existence doesn't reduce the integrity of WP). These categories have always been used for identification purposes, not social networking purposes. The frustrated "keep" !votes understandably neglected to reiterate rationales that had been given many times in the past; I don't see that as a reason to disregard those rationales. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - The delete reasons included not necessary, does not help collaboration, and divisive (sets a battleground for identity politics). The keep reasons seemed to focus on precedent, bias, and contempt (for the UCfD nomination). The delete reasons were stronger. The more than five day discussion was sufficient time. -- Jreferee t/c 07:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Similar types, on the other side of the political mess, have been deleted (though one might argue, plausibly, those were bad decisions too). For instance, Category:Pro-Life Wikipedians. Why should this be different? 128.118.161.244 07:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, or tentatively relist based on the strength of the deletion arguments, and the lack thereof with the keep arguments. That being said, there is the chance that the arguments have changed beyond that of contempt, and therefore another CfD can be held, but I doubt that has happened.--WaltCip 10:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comments One point I saw mentioned more than once in the UCFD discussion, and repeated here, needs to be addressed: the deletion of the Heterosexual Wikipedians category should not be used to buttress support of these deletions, or of the subsequent deletion of its parent category, Wikipedians by sexuality (which was a blatant "point" nomination, less than 13 hours after the deletion of the heterosexual category). Heterosexuality is a trait shared by anywhere from 90%–97% of the population, depending on which source is consulted, and is far too wide and diffuse to be a useful category; additionally, few of its adherents are consciously aware of their orientation, whereas sexual minorities are probably more aware of their own, because it differs from the default position. I supported the deletion of that category; I have never taken a position on these cats, although I believe some should have been merged if they were retained. (There is no need to have four usercats to describe bisexuality, for example.) Another issue is the whole thing about userboxes and usercats—with the exception of the two lesbian userboxes, none of the GLBT userboxes associated with these cats added the cat to the user's page, which meant that all of the people who were in these categories had actively sought them out, which is quite different from the usual 'add a userbox to one's user page and inadvertently add a usercat as well". Lastly, to those who have argued that the cats were useful for collaborative purposes, while the cat is certainly easier, the "what links here" function can be used as well, since there is no push to delete the userboxes. Horologium t-c 16:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Please note that I did not use the deletion of the Heterosexual Wikipedians to buttress support of these deletions. I used it to counter the argument that persons who argued for deletion of the categories were somehow biased against those members of the categories. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Closure per Jreferee. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. Wikipedia is not Myspace, and all of that. RFerreira 21:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment So you should be sure to remove cats User en, Wikipedians by alma mater: Duke University, Francophone Wikipedians and French Wikipedians from your user page then. ;) -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Two wrongs don't make a right.--WaltCip 10:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nor does double-standard. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse delete The strength of the arguments was for me on delete. Neozoon 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn there is no consistent consensus about these categories.DGG (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] OVERTURN I find it strange that we can classify ourtselves in anything but sexuality. I also propose mediators to investigate the issue since I find the deletion part of a homophobic push to erase sexual orientation-related categories from Wikipedia altogether. I see many of those who endorse seems to be concerned about creating disputes based on these categories. But I cannot see personal identification as divisive. Battlegrounds for identity politics has long been there and since Wikipedia does not exist outside the context of society at large, it cannot escape the reality of identity and its associatedd politics. In additoon " avoiding conflict" is a common excuse for homophobic achool administrators to remove any gender expression from school districts (disbanding GSAs, for example) and its ultimate goal always seem to be the removal of community identity and thus the protection and discussion it deserves. --Bud 08:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn based on previous discussion. The generally weak arguments from this most recent discussion were understandable in light of the affront taken by how frequently these categories are attacked. Some of the outrage was a bit over the top, but still understandable. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 21:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, stop crying homophobia at the drop of a hat as if the world can be divided into pridegoers and reggae singers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - ∅ (∅), 13:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment It's not a soapbox but opinion and reality isn't relegated to Fantasy Island either. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 17:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] The reality is that there is no evidence to support the suggestions of homophobia. The reality is that at least three of the editors endorsing deletion self-identify as LGBT. The reality is that such accusations fail to assume good faith and may be offensive. The reality is that they are irrelevant to this discussion, because they say nothing about the value of these categories or about the appropriateness of the closure. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Very well-said, Black Falcon. - jc37 21:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse for now I will assume good faith that this is just the start of removal of all categories that are of an equal importance or less important to the users. So, whoever has started the clean up better keep going or else the assumption will begin to stretch credulity. You can start with various sport teams, tv shows, game shows, leisure activities, etc. that users categorize themselves into. If not, this will likely be back at DRV and those who are screaming bias above will have a much better case if this was a one-off deletion. Carlossuarez46 02:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, but no. Yes it's a part of removing self-identification cats, but I don't think any of the examples you gave qualify for self-identification. An individual may be gay, they may be male, they may have blonde hair, they may have 10 toes, they may have brown eyes, they may be of a certain ethnicity/race, they may be married, they may be a parent, they may be a child, they may be an adult, they may be of a certain age, they may be of a certain generation, they may have been born under a certain sign of the zodiac. Every one of those is more a "state of being" than interest. Yes, they also may include interest, but typically that's not what the categories are being used for. For example, there was an large issue when the individual zodiac categories were merged into "Wikipedians interested in the zodiac". After the merging started, people made it rather clear that they had no interest in the zodiac, but merely were using that as a userpage notice, and what they felt was a a cool way to be grouped with others of their sign. It had nothing to do with interest in bulding the encyclopedia, or even in community building. It was just a "feel-good" statement. And while I support those on a userpage (though positive, and not negative), there is no need for a category for that. Compare to where a person is from; what sort of education thay may have had; what profession or skills they may have, such as knowledge of more than one language; what they spend their time learning, whether it be pop culture, or literature, or music, or art, or science, or mathematics, or history, or computer software, shouldn't matter. Those things which they show interest in are likely the same things that they will be likely to show interest in collaborating on. And we couldn't just rename this to "Wikipedians interested in LGBT culture/issues" (or some such name) exactly due to the self-identification problem, such as we had with the zodiac cats. Because, if we did rename, then we'd risk miscategorising Wikipedians, and that must be avoided. - jc37 06:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. If I had seen this debate, I would have argued to "keep". But based on the arguments present, the closer closed correctly. Deletion review is not AFD II. Neil ☎ 11:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Sexuality and gender identification categories – Deletions endorsed. Prior deletions of other (more "mainstream") gender/sexuality categories do belie the accusations of bias here. The consensus below endorsed the uCfD determination that these "status" categories (like "signs of the zodiac") do not contribute value to the encyclopedia, and may harm it by introducing factionalism. – Xoloz 13:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The ucfd was closed 5 days after it started, but no consensus had been reached. And considering that these have been up for deletion many times, I didn't see any real sign that consensus has changed. Closing admin said "The result of the debate was delete all based on strength of arguments." I'd like a little more time for consensus to be reached and arguments on both sides to be presented. Kolindigo 15:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Keep These categories have been here 2 years and now someone's "out to get them", having also listed Category:LGBT Wikipedians for deletion once all the cats above were deleted. All of these sexuality and gender identification cats being deleted were against WP:POINT in that the mass deletion was an abuse of process, failure to assume good faith, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, gaming the system and just flat out disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion on strength of arguments. "We just did this" is not a reason to keep. --Kbdank71 16:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't argue "we just did this". I argued that the deletions were "against WP:POINT in that the mass deletion was an abuse of process, failure to assume good faith, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, gaming the system and just flat out disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point." -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right. Your exact words were "You should be ashamed of yourself for even bringing these up for deletion again." You also said "it's only reasonable to assume that if these were deleted then every cat InsertYourOwnTitle Wikipedians would/should be deleted as well.", another non-reason to keep. You did not, in fact, touch upon any of the POINT, AGF, Abuse of process, nor did you explain here why any of that is true. --Kbdank71 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said that on the actual CfD discussion. This isn't the actual CfD discussion. Review is to expound on why, and that's what I'm touching on here. Further, I don't need to touch upon any of the POINT, AGF, Abuse of process, nor do I need to explain here why any of that is true because people can go read the text for themselves at [WP:POINT]], abuse of process, assume good faith, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and gaming the system. I'm not here to re-write what's already been written but to point it out. ;) -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is DRV, not CFD take two. Second, if I was going to say overturn because the nomination was abuse of process, or POINT, or whatever, I would explain why, or I'd be prepared to have my opinion discounted. Anyone can read the policies, but that doesn't tell them why you think they apply here. --Kbdank71 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they can't read the policies and comprehend why without me having to hold their hand, then I guess that's between them and their jesus because that's a problem above and beyond me. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse based on the strength of the arguments. It's kind of borderline between delete and no consensus but to be realistic most of those arguing to keep this were basing their arguments on precedent alone. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The arguments for 'keep' consisted primarily of arguments based in precedent alone or in the principle of self-identification for its own sake (which is not what user categories are for). On balance, the arguments for deletion were not really rebutted and claims that the categories are useful were not accompanied by any substantial explanation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - while the number of persons on both sides of the issue was equal, the strength of the arguments was not. Most arguments of keep varied between "bias against the categories (or their members)" and "we've already discussed this", neither of which I acknowledged as a strong argument. Rationale for this is that 1) Decisions have been made to delete all sorts of categories, including Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians, which was actually decided 3 months prior and 2) consensus can change. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn based on prior precedent as well as lack of consensus in this CfD. There's really no need to be excessively stringent with matters like these. The benefits are unsubstantial (fosters community somewhat, may occasionally be useful for finding editors interested in a specific field, might be useful for demographic analysis, etc.), but there's essentially nothing to weigh them against. The rationale for WP:HARMLESS is (slightly ironically) that there tend to be subtle harms associated with inclusion of articles, like marginal detriments to navigation or managability; in the case of these categories there really aren't any non-negligible negative ramifications (e.g. if this category is incomplete, its existence doesn't reduce the integrity of WP). These categories have always been used for identification purposes, not social networking purposes. The frustrated "keep" !votes understandably neglected to reiterate rationales that had been given many times in the past; I don't see that as a reason to disregard those rationales. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The delete reasons included not necessary, does not help collaboration, and divisive (sets a battleground for identity politics). The keep reasons seemed to focus on precedent, bias, and contempt (for the UCfD nomination). The delete reasons were stronger. The more than five day discussion was sufficient time. -- Jreferee t/c 07:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Similar types, on the other side of the political mess, have been deleted (though one might argue, plausibly, those were bad decisions too). For instance, Category:Pro-Life Wikipedians. Why should this be different? 128.118.161.244 07:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, or tentatively relist based on the strength of the deletion arguments, and the lack thereof with the keep arguments. That being said, there is the chance that the arguments have changed beyond that of contempt, and therefore another CfD can be held, but I doubt that has happened.--WaltCip 10:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments One point I saw mentioned more than once in the UCFD discussion, and repeated here, needs to be addressed: the deletion of the Heterosexual Wikipedians category should not be used to buttress support of these deletions, or of the subsequent deletion of its parent category, Wikipedians by sexuality (which was a blatant "point" nomination, less than 13 hours after the deletion of the heterosexual category). Heterosexuality is a trait shared by anywhere from 90%–97% of the population, depending on which source is consulted, and is far too wide and diffuse to be a useful category; additionally, few of its adherents are consciously aware of their orientation, whereas sexual minorities are probably more aware of their own, because it differs from the default position. I supported the deletion of that category; I have never taken a position on these cats, although I believe some should have been merged if they were retained. (There is no need to have four usercats to describe bisexuality, for example.) Another issue is the whole thing about userboxes and usercats—with the exception of the two lesbian userboxes, none of the GLBT userboxes associated with these cats added the cat to the user's page, which meant that all of the people who were in these categories had actively sought them out, which is quite different from the usual 'add a userbox to one's user page and inadvertently add a usercat as well". Lastly, to those who have argued that the cats were useful for collaborative purposes, while the cat is certainly easier, the "what links here" function can be used as well, since there is no push to delete the userboxes. Horologium t-c 16:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that I did not use the deletion of the Heterosexual Wikipedians to buttress support of these deletions. I used it to counter the argument that persons who argued for deletion of the categories were somehow biased against those members of the categories. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure per Jreferee. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Wikipedia is not Myspace, and all of that. RFerreira 21:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you should be sure to remove cats User en, Wikipedians by alma mater: Duke University, Francophone Wikipedians and French Wikipedians from your user page then. ;) -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two wrongs don't make a right.--WaltCip 10:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does double-standard. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse delete The strength of the arguments was for me on delete. Neozoon 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn there is no consistent consensus about these categories.DGG (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OVERTURN I find it strange that we can classify ourtselves in anything but sexuality. I also propose mediators to investigate the issue since I find the deletion part of a homophobic push to erase sexual orientation-related categories from Wikipedia altogether. I see many of those who endorse seems to be concerned about creating disputes based on these categories. But I cannot see personal identification as divisive. Battlegrounds for identity politics has long been there and since Wikipedia does not exist outside the context of society at large, it cannot escape the reality of identity and its associatedd politics. In additoon " avoiding conflict" is a common excuse for homophobic achool administrators to remove any gender expression from school districts (disbanding GSAs, for example) and its ultimate goal always seem to be the removal of community identity and thus the protection and discussion it deserves. --Bud 08:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn based on previous discussion. The generally weak arguments from this most recent discussion were understandable in light of the affront taken by how frequently these categories are attacked. Some of the outrage was a bit over the top, but still understandable. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 21:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, stop crying homophobia at the drop of a hat as if the world can be divided into pridegoers and reggae singers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - ∅ (∅), 13:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not a soapbox but opinion and reality isn't relegated to Fantasy Island either. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 17:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reality is that there is no evidence to support the suggestions of homophobia. The reality is that at least three of the editors endorsing deletion self-identify as LGBT. The reality is that such accusations fail to assume good faith and may be offensive. The reality is that they are irrelevant to this discussion, because they say nothing about the value of these categories or about the appropriateness of the closure. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Very well-said, Black Falcon. - jc37 21:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse for now I will assume good faith that this is just the start of removal of all categories that are of an equal importance or less important to the users. So, whoever has started the clean up better keep going or else the assumption will begin to stretch credulity. You can start with various sport teams, tv shows, game shows, leisure activities, etc. that users categorize themselves into. If not, this will likely be back at DRV and those who are screaming bias above will have a much better case if this was a one-off deletion. Carlossuarez46 02:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but no. Yes it's a part of removing self-identification cats, but I don't think any of the examples you gave qualify for self-identification. An individual may be gay, they may be male, they may have blonde hair, they may have 10 toes, they may have brown eyes, they may be of a certain ethnicity/race, they may be married, they may be a parent, they may be a child, they may be an adult, they may be of a certain age, they may be of a certain generation, they may have been born under a certain sign of the zodiac. Every one of those is more a "state of being" than interest. Yes, they also may include interest, but typically that's not what the categories are being used for. For example, there was an large issue when the individual zodiac categories were merged into "Wikipedians interested in the zodiac". After the merging started, people made it rather clear that they had no interest in the zodiac, but merely were using that as a userpage notice, and what they felt was a a cool way to be grouped with others of their sign. It had nothing to do with interest in bulding the encyclopedia, or even in community building. It was just a "feel-good" statement. And while I support those on a userpage (though positive, and not negative), there is no need for a category for that. Compare to where a person is from; what sort of education thay may have had; what profession or skills they may have, such as knowledge of more than one language; what they spend their time learning, whether it be pop culture, or literature, or music, or art, or science, or mathematics, or history, or computer software, shouldn't matter. Those things which they show interest in are likely the same things that they will be likely to show interest in collaborating on. And we couldn't just rename this to "Wikipedians interested in LGBT culture/issues" (or some such name) exactly due to the self-identification problem, such as we had with the zodiac cats. Because, if we did rename, then we'd risk miscategorising Wikipedians, and that must be avoided. - jc37 06:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. If I had seen this debate, I would have argued to "keep". But based on the arguments present, the closer closed correctly. Deletion review is not AFD II. Neil ☎ 11:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Kevin Locke - Bassist – Deletion endorsed. – Chick Bowen 16:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kevin Locke - Bassist (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` As below for Charlotte Collinwood I was trying to past 'hangon' as it was deleted Dylanmills 15:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion lack of reasoning. See also Charlotte Collingwood, below. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. No assertion of notability, valid A7. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Please read the inclusion guidelines for biographical articles. Articles and subject matter that fail these guidelines are unlikely to be accepted. Thank you, --NMChico24 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - CSD A7 no reasonable assertion of importance/significance applied. There is a Kevin Locke, a Lakota indian who received a National Heritage Fellowship for his flute playing and hoop dancing. That Kevin Locke is notable. Bassist Kevin Locke as a tipic does not seem to meet WP:N. -- Jreferee t/c 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse non-notable. The inability to add a "hang-on" tag isn't a valid reason for undeletion. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. There are times when not even a ((hangon)) template is going to help much. RFerreira 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse non-notable. Does not seem to meet WP:N Neozoon 22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Kevin Locke - Bassist – Deletion endorsed. – Chick Bowen 16:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

As below for Charlotte Collinwood I was trying to past 'hangon' as it was deleted Dylanmills 15:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion lack of reasoning. See also Charlotte Collingwood, below. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No assertion of notability, valid A7. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Please read the inclusion guidelines for biographical articles. Articles and subject matter that fail these guidelines are unlikely to be accepted. Thank you, --NMChico24 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - CSD A7 no reasonable assertion of importance/significance applied. There is a Kevin Locke, a Lakota indian who received a National Heritage Fellowship for his flute playing and hoop dancing. That Kevin Locke is notable. Bassist Kevin Locke as a tipic does not seem to meet WP:N. -- Jreferee t/c 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse non-notable. The inability to add a "hang-on" tag isn't a valid reason for undeletion. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There are times when not even a ((hangon)) template is going to help much. RFerreira 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse non-notable. Does not seem to meet WP:N Neozoon 22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Charlotte Collingwood – We don't restore copyvios. —Cryptic 22:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Charlotte Collingwood (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` perfectly valid and verifiable resume of an exellent musician I have seen several times recently. Dylanmills 14:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: name and links corrected. Chick Bowen 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, lack of reasoning: being "excellent" and being seen by you several times recently is not grounds to overturn a deletion. See WP:MUSIC for the applicable guideline. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Procedurally, I don't believe this was a valid A7, as performing at the Royal National Theatre and Old Vic assert some level of notability. However, the article was a copyvio of this page and should remain deleted accordingly. Unopposed to a new article that isn't cut and pasted from another website and properly asserts notability in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Charlotte Collingwood – We don't restore copyvios. —Cryptic 22:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

perfectly valid and verifiable resume of an exellent musician I have seen several times recently. Dylanmills 14:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: name and links corrected. Chick Bowen 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, lack of reasoning: being "excellent" and being seen by you several times recently is not grounds to overturn a deletion. See WP:MUSIC for the applicable guideline. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, I don't believe this was a valid A7, as performing at the Royal National Theatre and Old Vic assert some level of notability. However, the article was a copyvio of this page and should remain deleted accordingly. Unopposed to a new article that isn't cut and pasted from another website and properly asserts notability in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Three Valley Museum – Restored, sent to AfD. – Xoloz 12:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Three Valley Museum (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` This was deleted twice on CSD:A7 grounds. The second deleting admin userfied it at User:Tbay01. This article was about a local history museum. I understand that it may be controversial to say that all museums have sufficient notability to have articles, I believe that an article that states that its subject is a non-profit museum has enough of an assertion of notability to escape A7. For what it is worth, there are a few mentions of this museum in outside sources ([3] [4]) and is a member of the Oklahoma Museums Association [5]) (It also appears in many of the museum and attraction directories on the web, but I understand that that in and of itself is not enough to confer notability). I would like to see this article kept, or given a full hearing at AfD. Dsmdgold 13:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] comment. As the second deleting admin, I userfied the material because I believed there was a chance that the creator might expand it to assert notability; however, I do not believe notability was asserted within the article. Personally, I live within several miles of two non-profit museums, both operated out of somebody's house. (One is a museum to a locally born actress and another, more reputable, collects artifacts related to a locally prominent ethnic group.) If the article can be expanded with an assertion of notability and particularly if verifiability exists, there is nothing to prevent its being properly recreated. As WP:CORP indicates, "a company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources". It also says that "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found". If reliable independent sources are found, by all means, the article should be created. My note to the article's author explains how to do that in a form that would not be tagged for A7 again. --Moonriddengirl 13:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] If there is a chance that an article can be expanded, it should not be speedy deleted. As for the content of WP:CORP, to quote another notability guideline (WP:MUSIC)"Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." I would expect that an article about either of the two museums you mention to not be speedied, although I expect that at least the former would not survive the other deletion processes. Dsmdgold 13:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Question Since it has been userfied, everyone can see the content. A7 is about whether there was an assertion of notability. So, can the nominator say what is the assertion of notability that they believe was in the article? GRBerry 13:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] I believe that certain categories of article subjects have an inherent assertion of notability, including things like towns, published authors, and certain types of institutions, including museums. So, as a stated above, the statement that the subject of the article is a museum is, to me, an assertion of notability. Note that I am not saying that all museums should have articles, but rather that I believe that museums need a more thorough examination than is possible with speedy deletion. I would also note that in a very quick search, I found the two independent sources mentioned above, which at the very least would move the article towards meeting WP:CORP. Dsmdgold 22:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] You seem to be arguing that this certain class of articles should be excluded from WP:CSD#A7. I wonder if it wouldn't be more beneficial to debate that at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), where, if consensus is with you, changes might have more widespread application. Respectfully, I find it rather perplexing that you have chosen instead to formally debate the deletion of this particular museum, if it is the inherent notability of museums you wish to posit and not some specific assertion within the article, and without any attempt that I can see to resolve the issue in discussion first with me or the other admin who closed the speedy, as set out at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Purpose. Did the note I left here lead you to believe I'd be hostile to the presentation of new information? Or that if you suggested to me that the deletion was controversial, I'd be unwilling to at least take it through a different deletion process? I promise you that I'm not chomping at the bit to do away with all museum articles or even this one in particular. :) --Moonriddengirl 00:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps I have erred, and if so I apologize. However, since there were two deleting admins involved I thought that having a unified discussion would be more beneficial than attempting two separate discussions. I also felt that I had brought new information to the table: that the Museum has been covered in at least two independent sources. Yes, I am positing that articles on certain classes of subjects are excluded from A7. This however seems to me to be established practice. It may seem novel to argue that museums are one of those classes, but only because this is the first time I have seen a article on a museum speedied. (I have asserted elsewhere that all museums are notable.) It seems obvious to me that museums, as a class, have enough notability that would make them immune to A7. (Otherwise this would have been a speedy candidate, as there is no other assertion of notability.) Dsmdgold 01:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] I don't know if you need two discussions, unless you want both versions of the article restored. A glance at the deletion log suggests that the first one was merely a shorter version of the more recent one which I userfied. I have a different view on the inherent notability of museums than you do, but I'm not interested in stubbornly insisting that a deletion is non-controversial (as CSDs are meant to be, unless inherently harmful to the project like a copyvio or attack page) in the face of evidence otherwise. I made the material available to the creator, after all, precisely so that he or she would have it to work with if importance could be asserted. But as far as museums and A7 are concerned, while it may seem obvious to you, at least two other editors than I (the other admin & the nominator who tagged it both times) have considered it otherwise. I don't know how often museum articles are created and considered for deletion—as far as I know, this is the only that I've encountered—but if you believe they should be an exception to A7, you might want to pursue making that explicit. --Moonriddengirl 02:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and list at AfD - Hosting the history of Bryan County from its start in 1873 to the present seems important/significant to me. It also seems a reason that at least one of the Bryan County newspapers - Durant News, Read Caddo News, and/or Read Bokchito News - would have covered the topic. Comment - here is some info on the topic - There's plenty to explore in Durant [6], and [7]. -- Jreferee t/c 07:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn since there is evidence of potential notability here, and if necessary it can be listed at AFD for community consensus. RFerreira 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment As implied above, I have no problem restoring the article for the editor to expand (at least the one I deleted); I would have done so without the discussion on request. I would be bold and restore it now, but I've never been involved in a deletion review and am hesitant to buck process. If there's a snowball precedent here as at AfD, please, by all means, revive the article. --Moonriddengirl 02:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Speedy deletion is never preclusive of a recreated article that asserts notability. The version deleted does not. Not all non-profit museums are inherently notable. The collection rivals that of a typical antiques mall - and we've never held that whether something is for or not-for profit bears any relation to notability. If these contents are an assertion of notability (or the theoretically higher significan[ce] or importan[ce] literally required to avoid A7), then nearly any antiques mall, antiques show, and many better antiques shops are suddenly notable. WP≠YP (wikipedia isn't the yellow pages). I also tend to think that articles brought here after speedy, rather than requesting the deleting admin for userfication are likely to be unimprovable - because the drama-less and most obvious way to make the article better would be route not taken. Carlossuarez46 02:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Three Valley Museum – Restored, sent to AfD. – Xoloz 12:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This was deleted twice on CSD:A7 grounds. The second deleting admin userfied it at User:Tbay01. This article was about a local history museum. I understand that it may be controversial to say that all museums have sufficient notability to have articles, I believe that an article that states that its subject is a non-profit museum has enough of an assertion of notability to escape A7. For what it is worth, there are a few mentions of this museum in outside sources ([3] [4]) and is a member of the Oklahoma Museums Association [5]) (It also appears in many of the museum and attraction directories on the web, but I understand that that in and of itself is not enough to confer notability). I would like to see this article kept, or given a full hearing at AfD. Dsmdgold 13:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. As the second deleting admin, I userfied the material because I believed there was a chance that the creator might expand it to assert notability; however, I do not believe notability was asserted within the article. Personally, I live within several miles of two non-profit museums, both operated out of somebody's house. (One is a museum to a locally born actress and another, more reputable, collects artifacts related to a locally prominent ethnic group.) If the article can be expanded with an assertion of notability and particularly if verifiability exists, there is nothing to prevent its being properly recreated. As WP:CORP indicates, "a company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources". It also says that "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found". If reliable independent sources are found, by all means, the article should be created. My note to the article's author explains how to do that in a form that would not be tagged for A7 again. --Moonriddengirl 13:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a chance that an article can be expanded, it should not be speedy deleted. As for the content of WP:CORP, to quote another notability guideline (WP:MUSIC)"Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." I would expect that an article about either of the two museums you mention to not be speedied, although I expect that at least the former would not survive the other deletion processes. Dsmdgold 13:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Since it has been userfied, everyone can see the content. A7 is about whether there was an assertion of notability. So, can the nominator say what is the assertion of notability that they believe was in the article? GRBerry 13:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that certain categories of article subjects have an inherent assertion of notability, including things like towns, published authors, and certain types of institutions, including museums. So, as a stated above, the statement that the subject of the article is a museum is, to me, an assertion of notability. Note that I am not saying that all museums should have articles, but rather that I believe that museums need a more thorough examination than is possible with speedy deletion. I would also note that in a very quick search, I found the two independent sources mentioned above, which at the very least would move the article towards meeting WP:CORP. Dsmdgold 22:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing that this certain class of articles should be excluded from WP:CSD#A7. I wonder if it wouldn't be more beneficial to debate that at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), where, if consensus is with you, changes might have more widespread application. Respectfully, I find it rather perplexing that you have chosen instead to formally debate the deletion of this particular museum, if it is the inherent notability of museums you wish to posit and not some specific assertion within the article, and without any attempt that I can see to resolve the issue in discussion first with me or the other admin who closed the speedy, as set out at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Purpose. Did the note I left here lead you to believe I'd be hostile to the presentation of new information? Or that if you suggested to me that the deletion was controversial, I'd be unwilling to at least take it through a different deletion process? I promise you that I'm not chomping at the bit to do away with all museum articles or even this one in particular. :) --Moonriddengirl 00:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have erred, and if so I apologize. However, since there were two deleting admins involved I thought that having a unified discussion would be more beneficial than attempting two separate discussions. I also felt that I had brought new information to the table: that the Museum has been covered in at least two independent sources. Yes, I am positing that articles on certain classes of subjects are excluded from A7. This however seems to me to be established practice. It may seem novel to argue that museums are one of those classes, but only because this is the first time I have seen a article on a museum speedied. (I have asserted elsewhere that all museums are notable.) It seems obvious to me that museums, as a class, have enough notability that would make them immune to A7. (Otherwise this would have been a speedy candidate, as there is no other assertion of notability.) Dsmdgold 01:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you need two discussions, unless you want both versions of the article restored. A glance at the deletion log suggests that the first one was merely a shorter version of the more recent one which I userfied. I have a different view on the inherent notability of museums than you do, but I'm not interested in stubbornly insisting that a deletion is non-controversial (as CSDs are meant to be, unless inherently harmful to the project like a copyvio or attack page) in the face of evidence otherwise. I made the material available to the creator, after all, precisely so that he or she would have it to work with if importance could be asserted. But as far as museums and A7 are concerned, while it may seem obvious to you, at least two other editors than I (the other admin & the nominator who tagged it both times) have considered it otherwise. I don't know how often museum articles are created and considered for deletion—as far as I know, this is the only that I've encountered—but if you believe they should be an exception to A7, you might want to pursue making that explicit. --Moonriddengirl 02:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at AfD - Hosting the history of Bryan County from its start in 1873 to the present seems important/significant to me. It also seems a reason that at least one of the Bryan County newspapers - Durant News, Read Caddo News, and/or Read Bokchito News - would have covered the topic. Comment - here is some info on the topic - There's plenty to explore in Durant [6], and [7]. -- Jreferee t/c 07:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn since there is evidence of potential notability here, and if necessary it can be listed at AFD for community consensus. RFerreira 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As implied above, I have no problem restoring the article for the editor to expand (at least the one I deleted); I would have done so without the discussion on request. I would be bold and restore it now, but I've never been involved in a deletion review and am hesitant to buck process. If there's a snowball precedent here as at AfD, please, by all means, revive the article. --Moonriddengirl 02:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Speedy deletion is never preclusive of a recreated article that asserts notability. The version deleted does not. Not all non-profit museums are inherently notable. The collection rivals that of a typical antiques mall - and we've never held that whether something is for or not-for profit bears any relation to notability. If these contents are an assertion of notability (or the theoretically higher significan[ce] or importan[ce] literally required to avoid A7), then nearly any antiques mall, antiques show, and many better antiques shops are suddenly notable. WP≠YP (wikipedia isn't the yellow pages). I also tend to think that articles brought here after speedy, rather than requesting the deleting admin for userfication are likely to be unimprovable - because the drama-less and most obvious way to make the article better would be route not taken. Carlossuarez46 02:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.