< January 7	Deletion review archives: 2008 January	January 9 >

8 January 2008

Nuclear Whales Saxophone Orchestra – Speedy deletion overturned. Listing at AfD is at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nuclear Whales Saxophone Orchestra (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` I feel a little guilty about this as if I saw this at AfD while just passing by, I'd probably vote delete, but here goes. As I said on the now deleted talk page while arguing with a `((hangon))`, this group is notable mainly for its use of the contrabass saxophone. It's very large, very rare, and very uncommon to hear anyone play it in public. I have a source (actually the origin of a copyvio for the page three deletions ago): http://www.uca.edu/news/index.php?itemid=648. Essentially this DRV hinges on whether this is a reliable source: if it is we have an article (well a stub anyway), if not, then yes it does deserve to be deleted. What do you think? Happy‑melon 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Undelete - I don't have access to the deleted page, and there may well have been no assertion of notability, but on research I think there is enough that is notable about this group for them to avoid a speedy. There are plenty of sources from which an encyclopaedic page can be written. See here, here, here, and here for example. In addition to playing a behemoth of an instrument they gave a Beijing concert that was broadcast live throughout Asia (see here) and instigated a unique event at the Great Wall. They also seem to have a decent discography here. BlueValour (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Neutral, though I'm tempted to endorse. A7 is independent of questions of notability, as it explicitly states. Chances are it was just difficult for the tagger and deleting admin to see the notability of the group (i.e. the article didn't assert the importance of the subject). I agree with BlueValour that the group is probably notable enough for a page, but rather than bringing this here it'd be easier to just go ahead and create it. After all, the name isn't protected. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] It's been deleted three times already. I have no particular desire to get a 24-hour block for WP:POINT. As any admin capable of seeing the most recent version will tell you, there isn't a lot there to assert the notability, but with the sources BlueValour has found I think a decent stub can be created. I would love to see the version deleted under WP:CSD#G1 though! Happy‑melon 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse speedy-deletion under criterion A7. The contrabass saxophone may be rare but it is not so rare that every user of it becomes automatically worthy of an encyclopedia article. Notability is not inherited. Using such an instrument is not a credible assertion of notability. Allow recreation if there is some other evidence that could be used to assert that this band meets the generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - hmm - why doesn't the other material I found constitute 'other evidence'? BlueValour (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] It might. Our comments were in an edit conflict and I haven't yet had time to consider them. But if you're sure they'll hold up, don't wait on me to change my opinion (which was an assessment only of the validity of the speedy-deletion at the time of deletion) - be bold and write a better page that clearly satisfies the inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) Endorse deletion as above. While many notable musicians use unusual instruments, using an unusual instrument is not in itself a claim to notability. Bottom line: doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] ~~Undelete~~ the non-copyvio version for review and expansion. This group appears to meet the requirements of WP:BAND. In addition to the UCA link above, they have had mention in several US newspapers (LA Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Erie Times). Some are trivial, some go beyond just venue listings. There may be enough for criterion 1. Also, their 2005 event on the Great Wall was reported in Asian media (here from a wire service repeating China Daily[1]) and could be argued to fulfill BAND 4. Also, their music is included in NPR's "Musical Interludes".[2] If NPR's instrumental selections are considered to be the "rotation" of a "major radio network", which I would argue is an appropriate standard for the genre, then the band also satisfies criterion 11. There's plenty out there for a decent stub, at the least. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Actually, I'll step up to the plate here and write it. I'd like to request a userfied undeletion of the noncopyvio version so I can see what came before, and then I'll go ahead and create the properly sourced stub and save a lot of bother. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] That oughta' work. I'd be happy to assist you, if you'd like me to. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] If you need any help from my end don't hesitate to ask. Happy‑melon 11:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Undelete. They made AMG. Hyacinth (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Undelete They appear to have some notability, needs to go to a full AfD. RMHED (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Undelete any plausible claim or assertion of mindication of notability is enough to defeat a speedy. It may even be notable, but that;s for AfD. Bottom line, Andrew: it does not have to pass WP:MUSIC to prevent a speedy.DGG (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Undelete, not a purely open-and-shut case. Best take it to AfD just to be sure. Lankiveil (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Nuclear Whales Saxophone Orchestra – Speedy deletion overturned. Listing at AfD is at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I feel a little guilty about this as if I saw this at AfD while just passing by, I'd probably vote delete, but here goes. As I said on the now deleted talk page while arguing with a ((hangon)), this group is notable mainly for its use of the contrabass saxophone. It's very large, very rare, and very uncommon to hear anyone play it in public. I have a source (actually the origin of a copyvio for the page three deletions ago): http://www.uca.edu/news/index.php?itemid=648. Essentially this DRV hinges on whether this is a reliable source: if it is we have an article (well a stub anyway), if not, then yes it does deserve to be deleted. What do you think? Happy‑melon 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete - I don't have access to the deleted page, and there may well have been no assertion of notability, but on research I think there is enough that is notable about this group for them to avoid a speedy. There are plenty of sources from which an encyclopaedic page can be written. See here, here, here, and here for example. In addition to playing a behemoth of an instrument they gave a Beijing concert that was broadcast live throughout Asia (see here) and instigated a unique event at the Great Wall. They also seem to have a decent discography here. BlueValour (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, though I'm tempted to endorse. A7 is independent of questions of notability, as it explicitly states. Chances are it was just difficult for the tagger and deleting admin to see the notability of the group (i.e. the article didn't assert the importance of the subject). I agree with BlueValour that the group is probably notable enough for a page, but rather than bringing this here it'd be easier to just go ahead and create it. After all, the name isn't protected. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been deleted three times already. I have no particular desire to get a 24-hour block for WP:POINT. As any admin capable of seeing the most recent version will tell you, there isn't a lot there to assert the notability, but with the sources BlueValour has found I think a decent stub can be created. I would love to see the version deleted under WP:CSD#G1 though! Happy‑melon 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion under criterion A7. The contrabass saxophone may be rare but it is not so rare that every user of it becomes automatically worthy of an encyclopedia article. Notability is not inherited. Using such an instrument is not a credible assertion of notability. Allow recreation if there is some other evidence that could be used to assert that this band meets the generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - hmm - why doesn't the other material I found constitute 'other evidence'? BlueValour (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It might. Our comments were in an edit conflict and I haven't yet had time to consider them. But if you're sure they'll hold up, don't wait on me to change my opinion (which was an assessment only of the validity of the speedy-deletion at the time of deletion) - be bold and write a better page that clearly satisfies the inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk)
Endorse deletion as above. While many notable musicians use unusual instruments, using an unusual instrument is not in itself a claim to notability. Bottom line: doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undelete~~ the non-copyvio version for review and expansion. This group appears to meet the requirements of WP:BAND. In addition to the UCA link above, they have had mention in several US newspapers (LA Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Erie Times). Some are trivial, some go beyond just venue listings. There may be enough for criterion 1. Also, their 2005 event on the Great Wall was reported in Asian media (here from a wire service repeating China Daily[1]) and could be argued to fulfill BAND 4. Also, their music is included in NPR's "Musical Interludes".[2] If NPR's instrumental selections are considered to be the "rotation" of a "major radio network", which I would argue is an appropriate standard for the genre, then the band also satisfies criterion 11. There's plenty out there for a decent stub, at the least. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll step up to the plate here and write it. I'd like to request a userfied undeletion of the noncopyvio version so I can see what came before, and then I'll go ahead and create the properly sourced stub and save a lot of bother. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That oughta' work. I'd be happy to assist you, if you'd like me to. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you need any help from my end don't hesitate to ask. Happy‑melon 11:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. They made AMG. Hyacinth (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete They appear to have some notability, needs to go to a full AfD. RMHED (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete any plausible claim or assertion of mindication of notability is enough to defeat a speedy. It may even be notable, but that;s for AfD. Bottom line, Andrew: it does not have to pass WP:MUSIC to prevent a speedy.DGG (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, not a purely open-and-shut case. Best take it to AfD just to be sure. Lankiveil (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Option Knob – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 01:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Option Knob (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` I would like to state that the page the Option Knob should be re-instated due to an incorrect speedy deletion. The speedy deletion was said to have occured because the admin claimed that i was just using wikipedia to advertise my invention - this is not true and is a case of mistaken identity. I am not the inventor and the page Opiton Knob is a descriptive page of a viable object - not a blatent advertisement. So the descriminating factors that led to a speedy deletion are inaccurate and thus false. Upon this accusation I made note to the administrator that I happen to be the cousin of the person who invented this Option Knob, and because of my name or the user account I created to make this entry there is confusion that I am the inventor. But my attempt to create this wiki page was outside of any intention of the inventor, and the page was developed by benchmarking the wiki page Guitar Pick - so the style and content of the Option Knob page was done consistently with another invention of similar caliber on wikipedia, the Guitar Pick. I request that this please be reviewed and re-instated. Thank You. Chalhub (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. From the sentence-and-a-half I get in the deletion log, it looks pretty clearly like advertising (whether it was or not). It was only a single speedy, and you can still create it again, though I do suggest you change the tone a little. Also, I suggest you read WP:WAX, since Wikipedia isn't consistent. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Family members are also subject to conflict of interest. If this device truly meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria, you would do far better to let someone independent write the page. As it is, I can find no external sources for this article (by contrast, there are thousands of independent sources on the Guitar pick) and the tone of the deleted page was far more advertorial than encyclopedic. The speedy-deletion was within reasonable bounds. Rossami (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Blatant advertising written by Optionknob (talk · contribs). ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse proper speedy. Someone can always try to rewrite it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Option Knob – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 01:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to state that the page the Option Knob should be re-instated due to an incorrect speedy deletion. The speedy deletion was said to have occured because the admin claimed that i was just using wikipedia to advertise my invention - this is not true and is a case of mistaken identity. I am not the inventor and the page Opiton Knob is a descriptive page of a viable object - not a blatent advertisement. So the descriminating factors that led to a speedy deletion are inaccurate and thus false. Upon this accusation I made note to the administrator that I happen to be the cousin of the person who invented this Option Knob, and because of my name or the user account I created to make this entry there is confusion that I am the inventor. But my attempt to create this wiki page was outside of any intention of the inventor, and the page was developed by benchmarking the wiki page Guitar Pick - so the style and content of the Option Knob page was done consistently with another invention of similar caliber on wikipedia, the Guitar Pick. I request that this please be reviewed and re-instated. Thank You. Chalhub (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. From the sentence-and-a-half I get in the deletion log, it looks pretty clearly like advertising (whether it was or not). It was only a single speedy, and you can still create it again, though I do suggest you change the tone a little. Also, I suggest you read WP:WAX, since Wikipedia isn't consistent. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Family members are also subject to conflict of interest. If this device truly meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria, you would do far better to let someone independent write the page. As it is, I can find no external sources for this article (by contrast, there are thousands of independent sources on the Guitar pick) and the tone of the deleted page was far more advertorial than encyclopedic. The speedy-deletion was within reasonable bounds. Rossami (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Blatant advertising written by Optionknob (talk · contribs). ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse proper speedy. Someone can always try to rewrite it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ashley Fernee – Closure endorsed. – Kurykh 01:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ashley Fernee (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` I disagree with the concensus reached at AfD that this Aussie rules footballer meets the requirements of WP:BIO as playing at professional level and being a professional sportsman are not the same thing. The article has insufficient content, context or analysis and it does not assert any claim to notability for the player. Notability to come perhaps. Gavin Collins (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I can't quite work out how being a paid professional in your sport means you are not a professional sportsman. Hiding T 14:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse keep While I see your point, DRV isn't intended to be where to go when you disagree with consensus in an AfD, it's for evaluating problems in process or when circumstances change. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. DRV is not AfD round 2. There's a pretty clear consensus based on WP:BIO that all professional athletes are notable. This AfD verified that with a clear consensus. --Smashville^BONK! 16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure - the consensus at AfD was clear and we are not here to second guess the decision of the Community, but to ensure that the AFD was properly closed; which it was. Further, the subject has played at the highest level of Aussie Rules and thus meets WP:BIO. BlueValour (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure for now, although a renomination in a few months might be in order if the article isn't sourced independently. WP:BIO doesn't trump our core policies. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] What "independent sources" are you looking for? --Craw-daddy \| T \| 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Those mentioned in WP:N. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The consensus seems pretty clear to me, and the arguments presented were reasonable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure consensus was clear. On a process note: We keep saying that DRV isn't AFD round 2, but frankly it has become so with late arriving evidence to show notability or that some band played some tour or another. Better than a bureaucracy but encourages everyone to take his or her shot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse keep. I think that the guidelines at WP:BIO are clear in this respect. --Craw-daddy \| T \| 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ashley Fernee – Closure endorsed. – Kurykh 01:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I disagree with the concensus reached at AfD that this Aussie rules footballer meets the requirements of WP:BIO as playing at professional level and being a professional sportsman are not the same thing. The article has insufficient content, context or analysis and it does not assert any claim to notability for the player. Notability to come perhaps. Gavin Collins (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite work out how being a paid professional in your sport means you are not a professional sportsman. Hiding T 14:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep While I see your point, DRV isn't intended to be where to go when you disagree with consensus in an AfD, it's for evaluating problems in process or when circumstances change. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. DRV is not AfD round 2. There's a pretty clear consensus based on WP:BIO that all professional athletes are notable. This AfD verified that with a clear consensus. --Smashville^BONK! 16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - the consensus at AfD was clear and we are not here to second guess the decision of the Community, but to ensure that the AFD was properly closed; which it was. Further, the subject has played at the highest level of Aussie Rules and thus meets WP:BIO. BlueValour (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure for now, although a renomination in a few months might be in order if the article isn't sourced independently. WP:BIO doesn't trump our core policies. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What "independent sources" are you looking for? --Craw-daddy | T | 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those mentioned in WP:N. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The consensus seems pretty clear to me, and the arguments presented were reasonable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure consensus was clear. On a process note: We keep saying that DRV isn't AFD round 2, but frankly it has become so with late arriving evidence to show notability or that some band played some tour or another. Better than a bureaucracy but encourages everyone to take his or her shot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. I think that the guidelines at WP:BIO are clear in this respect. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Queer Wikipedians – Deletion endorsed again. The issue is actually much simpler than many arguments below suggest, and I think there is consensus on this: user categories should be explicitly oriented toward collaboration. The argument that the category in question could be used for collaboration is not relevant. Yes, many user categories still need to be brought in line with the need for collaboration, but that is not a reason to undelete any one of them. – Chick Bowen 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Queer Wikipedians (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`UCfD`\|`DRV`)` The category was deleted "based on strength of arguments" (Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Sexuality_and_gender_identification). The primary argument appears to be that the category is unnecessary to collaboration. However, the category was not considered in view of existing "collaborative" user categories such as Category:Wikipedians in Montana, Category:Wikipedia administrators, Category:Wikipedian cellists-2, and Category:Wikipedian composers. The claim that this "category" of potential collaborators is actually more important or relevant to collaboration was cited as a reason to automatically delete. I have never collaborated with Montanans, cellists, or even administrators on Wikipedia through user categories while I have collaborated through Category:LGBT Wikipedians or similar categories. I recreated Category:Queer Wikipedians stating that "This user category is for the purpose of fostering a collaborative environment between queer editors and editors of articles covering queer topics" and placing it under Category:Wikipedians by interest. The "Queer Wikipedians" category is not substantially different from the other subcategories of "Wikipedians by interest" or the other categories on my userpage and substantial reasons have not been given for its deletion. - Hyacinth (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse previous consensus - See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 10 for the DRV of the UCFD discussion linked to above. As noted several times, there's a WikiProject for collaborating concerning these topics. As I noted previously, I wonder if Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on sexuality and gender-related issues (or even Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues) would actually attract members. Or in other words, is this honestly about creating a "by interest" category for collaboration, or is this about having a "feel-good" category. If it's about collaboration, calling the category "Queer Wikipedians" excludes those who might be interested and/or knowledgeable about such topics, who may not themselves idenitify as Queer. - jc37 10:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] How does Category:Wikipedian cellists-2 assist with collaboration while Category:Queer Wikipedians only feels good? Hyacinth (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] De-babelising the "instrument" categories (UpMerging all the "number" cats) has been previously discussed, though not as a nomination as I recall. If you have concerns about a Wikipedian category, please feel free to nominate it for discussion. - jc37 10:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] For the record, you're not going to get very far with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. superluser_tc 2008 January 08, 11:55 (UTC) Why must there be only one way for LGBT Wikipedians to find each other for collaboration? Maybe there are queer Wikipedians who aren't interested in joining a Wikiproject. Maybe there are queer Wikipedians who don't like the people in the LGBT Wikiproject. Maybe there are queer Wikipedians who have never heard of the LGBT Wikiproject. Why bureaucratically force them to organize or collaborate as you see fit? Otto4711 (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Prod It seems to me that the issue here is that most Wikipedians are going to be interested in their sexuality at some level, and that, logically, every single user entry would wind up with a category leading to some form of sexuality. At that point, we will have categories with millions of users apiece, and that leads to a rather useless category. If I have a category for "Bergen Evans fans" on my user page, that tells a fellow editor something about me and my extraordinary interests and about some topics that I am likely to have a significant opinion on. On the other hand, a category for "TV owners" would tell the editor significantly less. I don't know the solution for this, but perhaps a better idea for this category might be something along the lines of "Queer activists"? It tells you that the user is not only queer, but also has a significant interest and knowledge in issues dealing with queer activism. It could also be separated from "Queer rights activists", which could be a category for those who are not queer but participate in activism. superluser_tc 2008 January 08, 14:22 (UTC) The debate looks a clear no consensus. The central factor is whether the category is of use. Some wikipedians felt it was, some didn't, and there was no consensus on the utility of all categories nominated. I don't understand the strength of argument comment, since one side were asserting that the Wikiproject category would do all these categories do, and some other people were saying no it wouldn't. You can't have a stronger argument on the side of someone who asserts something is so than on the side that asserts it isn't so when that something is a matter of personal opinion and not objective fact. All that said, the categories have been allowed to lay deleted by the community for over two months, which suggests the consensus lies in them being deleted. I can't endorse the close, but perhaps a relisting might work for one and all? Hiding T 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure if you noticed, but in case it was missed, there was a DRV concerning the discussion, which was closed as "endorse". That said, I think that this nom (at least on the surface) claims to be about creating a category showing interest in collaboration. If so, I suggest a different (more clear) name. (I noted two possible suggestions in my comments above.) As such, if they create an actual "interested in" category, there's no need for this DRV at all. - jc37 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Consensus can change. The categories were nominated for deletion how many times? I guess we can have a couple of DRV's then. Or have we introduced binding decisions recently? Hiding T 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sure. However, the UCFD discussion linked to by the nominator already had a DRV, which endorsed the closure. The nomination above in no way suggests that "Consensus has changed", but rather that they wish this to be a "Collaborative" by interest category. If so, then it should be named similarly to those categories: "Category:Wikipedians interested in <x>". As I've said several times now, if they do so, the category likely won't be deleted. If now the nominator wants to suggest that consensus has changed, I'd be interested in seeing that consensus, as nearly, if not all of the WP:WAX examples in the "several previously nominations" which you note, have also been deleted/renamed/merged. It's been established again, and again, by many for over 2 years, that Wikipedian categories should not be used merely for self-identification - a userpage notice of some kind (including a userbox) is enough for that, there's no need for a grouping to do so. - jc37 01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm indicating that the consensus that that was a valid close may well have changed. I'm also positing that if the user wants to recreate deleted material then the user is likely in the right place to seek a consensus. It's been established that some user categories are not wanted. This does not mean all of them are unwanted. The limited pool of participants in deletion debates over two years do not over rule a wider consensus if it can be established. The only guidance I could find last time I looked regarding user categories was that when creating them people should consider their utility. If there is no consensus that the categories are not useful, it therefore follows they should not be deleted. Based on that and the deletion debate listed above, I believe that's a bad close based on my reasoning above. Others did not take that view at the previous DRV, granted, however, maybe the consensus has changed. We'll just have to wait and see. Hiding T 01:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] "The limited* pool of participants in deletion debates over two years"* - An inaccurate statement. According to the tool on my user page, there have been 1022 unique editors to that page alone (not to mention the CFD discussions prior to that). And over 150 of them have more than 10 edits to the page. 90+ have more than 20. This isn't a case of 5 editors forcing their will upon the rest of Wikipedia, no matter how one may wish to believe that to be so. - jc37 01:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm indicating that 1052 is a limited pool spread over two years. Probably over one day, when you think about it. When you get down and root through UCFD I'm indicating it's a limited pool of contributors. I'm not suggesting anything other than it is, like almost every page on Wikipedia, edited only by a limited pool of contributors. I do this only because you made the point of stating their were many. I wanted to post the opposing view for the purposes of informing debate. And if we want to swap stats, well, ten contributors have made roughly half the edits to the page. Hiding T 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Also, where is this change of consensus you suggest? Or are you suggesting that any time someone wants to regauge consensus on something, they should DRV any previously closed XfD discussion at any time, no matter how much time has passed, just "to see"? I'll have to look for it, but I think that that's suggested to be a disruptive act. - jc37 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] You are suggesting that something which has been deleted and had that deletion endorsed at WP:DRV is therefore forever to be deleted? I think that's in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. We dpon't have much guidance on what to do when you wish to recreate a category which has been previously dleted, but I think the user is following the right channels, I think the merits of the circumstances can be reviewed and I think we could avoid accusing people of disruption simply because they disagree. I don't think Wikipedia has become a closed shop just yet. Just because you have the chairs on the table and have started mopping the floor, doesn't mean the rest of us have finished drinking. Where else do people go when they want to recreate something previously deleted? Hiding T 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oh, I understand where you're coming from, and I (mostly) agree with you in theory. (Though I think there should be some positive prior impetus, not some negative IWANTIT edit warring...) Note that there's a Village Pump discussion under way simultaneous to this discussion which would seem to provide the "evidence" noted in WP:AGF ("...unless there is evidence to the contrary"). I personally think that at least part of what's going on here is an attempt to use DRV to "retry" the CFD discussion, which, as noted at WP:DRV is not what DRV is for. Again I point you to the idea that if the 3 users were actually interested in a collaboration category, as the nom claims, I would presume they would jump at the chance to have it by any name, since collaboration is their goal as stated. Have you noticed I've had no response to the alternate naming suggestions which would follow the convention of Category:Wikipedians by interest? - jc37 02:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Like I say, if you know of a better venue to discuss the disputed deletion, I'm all ears. I don't want to second guess motives. If people want to self identify on Wikipedia as something, I'm not convinced it is my place to tell them not to. I'll leave that to consensus. I think the three users might be interested in a collaboration category with a specific name, and I'm not sure it's my place to tell them otherwise either. regardless of whether some people are retrying the cfd, I still think it was a bad close and I think that's what we're supposed to assess here, and I think the community blew it twice on this. Hiding T 02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Undelete all - I have little to no interest in or use for user categories and indeed find them almost uniformly silly. However, the debate on these categories resulted in no consensus. I am also troubled by the continual re-nomination of the categories in the hopes of, as one commentator called it, "out-stubborning" the proponents. And for the record, dismissing sexuality issues as "who people like to have sex with" is indicative of an extremely low level of understanding of the subject matter. Otto4711 (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note my comments to Hiding above. - jc37 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I had not intended to imply that the debate itself was closed no consensus (obviously it wasn't since the categories were deleted). To clarify, in my opinion the debate should have been closed as no consensus, the closing admin was in error to close it as delete, the arguments for deletion were not strong and the deletions should be overturned. Otto4711 (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Even in light of there already having been a DRV on the subject, which endorsed the closure? - jc37 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yes, even in light of that discussion because consensus can change. And consensus that was no consensus absolutely can change. I find it more than a little amusing that the deletion of categories that came about only after repeated attempts to delete them is being defended with no regard to the notion of changeable consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse again - This has already been discussed at DRV once and upheld. I see nothing here to indicate that the facts surrounding this case have changed to justify this going through DRV again. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Right, so identifying by use of Category:American Wikipedians is certainly plausable while identifying by use of Category:Queer Wikipedians isnt, correct? -- ALLSTARecho 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] As has been noted above, if you have an issue with a Wikipedian category please feel free to nominate it for discussion. - jc37 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] If I had an issue with the cat itself, I would. I'm making a distinction. -- ALLSTARecho 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] That's a facile and redundant argument. If you believe there is a double standard operating, but want both categories kept, why on earth would you nominate the second category? Hiding T 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Who nominated anything here? We're talking about the Queer Wikipedians cat that's already been deleted. -- ALLSTARecho 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Jc was asserting that if you want to recreate this category because another category similar to it exists, you should instead nominate the other category for deletion. At least, that is how I read the comment, and why I have responded as I have. I believe if you want to recreate a category that was previously deleted, you come here and ask. Hiding T 01:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Not exactly, but close enough. Though "for discussion", rather than "for deletion", noting that CfD/UCfD are discussions with many possible outcomes, and are not keep/delete dualism debates. - jc37 01:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] You're right, I hadn't considered the fact that someone who couldn't understand why "something" exists whilst "something else" they thought should and was similar but was deleted would be most bothered about wanting to rename the something. I'll bear that in mind in future. Hiding T 02:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Your sarcasm aside, such a discussion is actually going on right now, which (I think) proves the point. Whether the nom was in "bad faith" or not, the topic is being discussed by others, and not all proposals are keep or delete. - jc37 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I've already commented there, but thank you for the pointer. Hiding T 02:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please cite and quote a Wikipedia policy which would prohibit the use of this category. Hyacinth (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sure, WP:NOT. It's been established in over several years of discussions, which involved many different Wikipedians, that Wikipedian categories should not be used for "feel-good" socialising, but instead as navigation tools (which is what categories are) for collaboration and contribution. In addition, naming conventions for the categories is by convention of those already in the categories. This is intended to cut down on the bureaucratic overhead of creating a naming convention for every parent category. (Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.) Based on that, in reading your nomination, at least, your proposed category should follow the naming convention of: "Category:Wikipedians interested in <x>" - In this case, presumably "LGBT issues". Which gives a name of: Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues. Such a category would presumably not be nominated for deletion, as the inclusion criteria would thus be clearer in its naming. - jc37 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - As Jc37 notes above, there are much better names for such a category if collaboration is the true intent of its creation. As named, this category discouraged those who were interested about collaborating on such topics, but were not queer themselves. Categories like "American Wikipedians" have been allowed based on the understanding that "basic demographic information" via user categories is allowed. Is sexual orientation basic demographic information? That's debatable. I like to determine that by asking "Would a lender ask this information for a loan application? In this case, no. VegaDark (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] But out of interest, weren't the relationship and age categories deleted? Lenders ask about that. Hiding T 01:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] There were other concerns leading to the deletion of those, AFAIK. Also I think only the age categories for those under 18 were deleted, I think categories grouping Wikipedians in the decade they were born were allowed, last I checked at least. VegaDark (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Age related cats aren't jumping out at me from Category:Wikipedians. I recall the under 18 one's going, that caused a stir. Still never mind. No harm done. Ta. Hiding T 02:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Undelete I think Hyacinth has demonstrated that this category can be and in fact has been used to further the interests of the project. That it could also function as a sort of social network (though we lack evidence that it does) is irrelevant. Just linking to WP:NOT isn't enough — the unrebutted evidence shows that this category is a collaborative tool, and there's no reason to think it has costs that outweigh that benefit. atakdoug (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Where is the justification for categories based on "basic demographic information"? Hyacinth (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Apparently consensus changed since then. Hyacinth (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Seems comfortable enough to decree consensus and majority rules when one isn't the minority and a small one at that. Personally this seems to me to fall under WP:IAR as it seems to be hurting no one unless jealousy is a factor to which I have no immediate writable answer. Benjiboi 18:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I don't see anything different this go-round. --Kbdank71 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Can't see any reason that this is helpful to the project, even after evaluating the arguements. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] What arguments? Please cite a policy or reason. Hyacinth (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore I agree in all respects with Otto. If there's anything clear, its there is no consensus of this sort of category. I can never imagine using any personal-identity or interest category myself, but let others do as suits them. If there's a better name, suggest a change, not a deletion. there is not the least reason to think this has been used or will be used to harm the encyclopedia, or for lobbying. We should delete only user categories that have actually proved harmful. DGG (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore Proponents of the user category deletion have cited one policy, "What Wikipedia is not" as supporting deletion without citing a policy which opposes the existence of the category, including Wikipedia:Categorization#User namespace. Proponents of deletion have not shown any harm would occur to Wikipedia through the existence of the category. Proponents of deletion claim that WP:NOT prevents categories which are not used for collaboration but have not proposed a method for verifying whether potential categories may be or existing categories are used for collaboration. In contrast Wikipedia:User page indicates that "Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project" including "organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working." The user category would assist both with organizing work and helping other editors understand each other. Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page? does not include any restriction which would apply to the user category. It clarifies: "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." This indicates that a harm resulting from this user category must be proven. Wikipedia:Categorization#User namespace contains no support for the user category deletion. Given the above I must vote to restore the category. Hyacinth (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Question: What indicates that a user category is collaborative? Hyacinth (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] So far only the title of the user category has been proposed as an indicator of collaborative potential. This indicates that the statement of collaborative intent should be enough to justify a user category. The only reason given that this must be stated in the category title is to reduce beurocratic overhead (to eliminate the need to actually look at the category page). Hyacinth (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Question: How may we verify how categories are actually being used for collaboration? Hyacinth (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Question: If "categories are designed and intended to be for navigation purposes only" then collaborative categories are as inappropriate as "feel good" ones. Hyacinth (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - For several days now I've attempted to answer Hyacinth's questions. And though I continue to do so, at this point I wonder if we're watching an attempt at circular debate. And as an aside, I'm still noting that the user continues to directly ignore the non-disruptive option suggested above (by me, and others). If the intention is collaborative, then I'd suggest renaming the cat to follow current convention. But since it's already been deleted (apparently several times), then the suggestion is to create the cat of the new name which follows current convention, and please refrain from the POV nominations and other such (at least semi-)disruptive actions. The fact that they are pushing for a name which is contrary to convention, and has already gone through CFD and DRV, without showing that consensus has changed anywhere, would seem to indicate POV pushing to me. Though I'd honestly love to hear evidence otherwise. - jc37 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - While I'm not particularly fond of their existence (and in fact, would vote to delete if this were the UCfD), the intent of WP:DRV is not to determine whether or not a particular act was a good idea, but whether or not the close was done so with a viable consensus. I personally agree with User:Jc37 in that the category should have a less controversial name (the suggested Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues would be ideal). However, the UCfD should have been closed as no consensus. It is important to understand that WP:DRV is not another XfD. The only issue at hand is whether or not an XfD was closed properly, and in this case, it was not. Justin ^chat 05:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - I see no difference in this and Category:American Wikipedians. Further, Hyacinth has raised valid concerns and has shown that the deletion of this cat was in error. -- ALLSTARecho 05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn / undelete. I believe this meets the criterion of being beneficial to a better WP in practical use than some of the existing / surviving cats, eg. Category:American Wikipedians. It is certainly interesting to compare the discussions on the deletions / reviews of this category with those for my request to delete the American Wikipedians one which nobody has (so far) tried to justify as useful for collaboration and only as 'fun'. --AlisonW (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion, unnecessarily exclusionary, collaboration on such articles would be much better served by a category "Wikipedians interested in Queer issues", or similar. That way non-Queer Wikipedians interested in collaborating on such issues can join in, and Queer Wikipedians who aren't so interested in contributing on those topics won't be assumed to be. Looking at the original discussion, the arguments for keeping this look weak. Lankiveil (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply] What about looking at this discussion? Hyacinth (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn/undelete all per my comments on the English mailing list a while back (see here), reposted at User:Ned Scott/User categories. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] We should also look into some of these other past discussions about user categories, as I really think the WP:MYSPACE argument keeps getting cited (even now) are being applied to many cats that have no such problem. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per Xoloz close of the previous DRV. Given their limited value to encyclopedia building such purely identificary categories tend to do more harm than good; even if the harm is very slight. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment could the same not be said about Wikipedians interested in Narnia, Wikipedians who like Star Trek, Wikipedians who read A Song of Ice and Fire, Wikipedian San Antonio Spurs fans, Wikipedians in Texas, Wikipedians in San Antonio and Wikipedians who read Tolkien, all of which are on your user page? Those certainly have limited value to encyclopedia building and are purely identificary. I'm just sayin'... ALLSTARecho 06:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'd say that several of those have higher collaborative potential, location for instance can be useful, but certainly not all of them. I'd have no problem seeing them deleted since I think that user categories have limited utility and high potential for abuse. They are on my user page as a result of the transclusion of userboxes which I consider a convenient way of indicating interests and biases but I don't support the categories themselves. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Queer Wikipedians – Deletion endorsed again. The issue is actually much simpler than many arguments below suggest, and I think there is consensus on this: user categories should be explicitly oriented toward collaboration. The argument that the category in question could be used for collaboration is not relevant. Yes, many user categories still need to be brought in line with the need for collaboration, but that is not a reason to undelete any one of them. – Chick Bowen 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The category was deleted "based on strength of arguments" (Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Sexuality_and_gender_identification). The primary argument appears to be that the category is unnecessary to collaboration. However, the category was not considered in view of existing "collaborative" user categories such as Category:Wikipedians in Montana, Category:Wikipedia administrators, Category:Wikipedian cellists-2, and Category:Wikipedian composers. The claim that this "category" of potential collaborators is actually more important or relevant to collaboration was cited as a reason to automatically delete. I have never collaborated with Montanans, cellists, or even administrators on Wikipedia through user categories while I have collaborated through Category:LGBT Wikipedians or similar categories. I recreated Category:Queer Wikipedians stating that "This user category is for the purpose of fostering a collaborative environment between queer editors and editors of articles covering queer topics" and placing it under Category:Wikipedians by interest. The "Queer Wikipedians" category is not substantially different from the other subcategories of "Wikipedians by interest" or the other categories on my userpage and substantial reasons have not been given for its deletion. - Hyacinth (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse previous consensus - See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 10 for the DRV of the UCFD discussion linked to above. As noted several times, there's a WikiProject for collaborating concerning these topics. As I noted previously, I wonder if Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on sexuality and gender-related issues (or even Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues) would actually attract members. Or in other words, is this honestly about creating a "by interest" category for collaboration, or is this about having a "feel-good" category. If it's about collaboration, calling the category "Queer Wikipedians" excludes those who might be interested and/or knowledgeable about such topics, who may not themselves idenitify as Queer. - jc37 10:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does Category:Wikipedian cellists-2 assist with collaboration while Category:Queer Wikipedians only feels good? Hyacinth (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
De-babelising the "instrument" categories (UpMerging all the "number" cats) has been previously discussed, though not as a nomination as I recall. If you have concerns about a Wikipedian category, please feel free to nominate it for discussion. - jc37 10:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you're not going to get very far with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. superluser_tc 2008 January 08, 11:55 (UTC)

Why must there be only one way for LGBT Wikipedians to find each other for collaboration? Maybe there are queer Wikipedians who aren't interested in joining a Wikiproject. Maybe there are queer Wikipedians who don't like the people in the LGBT Wikiproject. Maybe there are queer Wikipedians who have never heard of the LGBT Wikiproject. Why bureaucratically force them to organize or collaborate as you see fit? Otto4711 (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prod It seems to me that the issue here is that most Wikipedians are going to be interested in their sexuality at some level, and that, logically, every single user entry would wind up with a category leading to some form of sexuality. At that point, we will have categories with millions of users apiece, and that leads to a rather useless category. If I have a category for "Bergen Evans fans" on my user page, that tells a fellow editor something about me and my extraordinary interests and about some topics that I am likely to have a significant opinion on. On the other hand, a category for "TV owners" would tell the editor significantly less.

I don't know the solution for this, but perhaps a better idea for this category might be something along the lines of "Queer activists"? It tells you that the user is not only queer, but also has a significant interest and knowledge in issues dealing with queer activism. It could also be separated from "Queer rights activists", which could be a category for those who are not queer but participate in activism. superluser_tc 2008 January 08, 14:22 (UTC)

The debate looks a clear no consensus. The central factor is whether the category is of use. Some wikipedians felt it was, some didn't, and there was no consensus on the utility of all categories nominated. I don't understand the strength of argument comment, since one side were asserting that the Wikiproject category would do all these categories do, and some other people were saying no it wouldn't. You can't have a stronger argument on the side of someone who asserts something is so than on the side that asserts it isn't so when that something is a matter of personal opinion and not objective fact. All that said, the categories have been allowed to lay deleted by the community for over two months, which suggests the consensus lies in them being deleted. I can't endorse the close, but perhaps a relisting might work for one and all? Hiding T 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you noticed, but in case it was missed, there was a DRV concerning the discussion, which was closed as "endorse". That said, I think that this nom (at least on the surface) claims to be about creating a category showing interest in collaboration. If so, I suggest a different (more clear) name. (I noted two possible suggestions in my comments above.) As such, if they create an actual "interested in" category, there's no need for this DRV at all. - jc37 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. The categories were nominated for deletion how many times? I guess we can have a couple of DRV's then. Or have we introduced binding decisions recently? Hiding T 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. However, the UCFD discussion linked to by the nominator already had a DRV, which endorsed the closure. The nomination above in no way suggests that "Consensus has changed", but rather that they wish this to be a "Collaborative" by interest category. If so, then it should be named similarly to those categories: "Category:Wikipedians interested in <x>". As I've said several times now, if they do so, the category likely won't be deleted. If now the nominator wants to suggest that consensus has changed, I'd be interested in seeing that consensus, as nearly, if not all of the WP:WAX examples in the "several previously nominations" which you note, have also been deleted/renamed/merged. It's been established again, and again, by many for over 2 years, that Wikipedian categories should not be used merely for self-identification - a userpage notice of some kind (including a userbox) is enough for that, there's no need for a grouping to do so. - jc37 01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indicating that the consensus that that was a valid close may well have changed. I'm also positing that if the user wants to recreate deleted material then the user is likely in the right place to seek a consensus. It's been established that some user categories are not wanted. This does not mean all of them are unwanted. The limited pool of participants in deletion debates over two years do not over rule a wider consensus if it can be established. The only guidance I could find last time I looked regarding user categories was that when creating them people should consider their utility. If there is no consensus that the categories are not useful, it therefore follows they should not be deleted. Based on that and the deletion debate listed above, I believe that's a bad close based on my reasoning above. Others did not take that view at the previous DRV, granted, however, maybe the consensus has changed. We'll just have to wait and see. Hiding T 01:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The limited pool of participants in deletion debates over two years" - An inaccurate statement. According to the tool on my user page, there have been 1022 unique editors to that page alone (not to mention the CFD discussions prior to that). And over 150 of them have more than 10 edits to the page. 90+ have more than 20. This isn't a case of 5 editors forcing their will upon the rest of Wikipedia, no matter how one may wish to believe that to be so. - jc37 01:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indicating that 1052 is a limited pool spread over two years. Probably over one day, when you think about it. When you get down and root through UCFD I'm indicating it's a limited pool of contributors. I'm not suggesting anything other than it is, like almost every page on Wikipedia, edited only by a limited pool of contributors. I do this only because you made the point of stating their were many. I wanted to post the opposing view for the purposes of informing debate. And if we want to swap stats, well, ten contributors have made roughly half the edits to the page. Hiding T 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where is this change of consensus you suggest? Or are you suggesting that any time someone wants to regauge consensus on something, they should DRV any previously closed XfD discussion at any time, no matter how much time has passed, just "to see"? I'll have to look for it, but I think that that's suggested to be a disruptive act. - jc37 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that something which has been deleted and had that deletion endorsed at WP:DRV is therefore forever to be deleted? I think that's in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. We dpon't have much guidance on what to do when you wish to recreate a category which has been previously dleted, but I think the user is following the right channels, I think the merits of the circumstances can be reviewed and I think we could avoid accusing people of disruption simply because they disagree. I don't think Wikipedia has become a closed shop just yet. Just because you have the chairs on the table and have started mopping the floor, doesn't mean the rest of us have finished drinking. Where else do people go when they want to recreate something previously deleted? Hiding T 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand where you're coming from, and I (mostly) agree with you in theory. (Though I think there should be some positive prior impetus, not some negative IWANTIT edit warring...) Note that there's a Village Pump discussion under way simultaneous to this discussion which would seem to provide the "evidence" noted in WP:AGF ("...unless there is evidence to the contrary"). I personally think that at least part of what's going on here is an attempt to use DRV to "retry" the CFD discussion, which, as noted at WP:DRV is not what DRV is for. Again I point you to the idea that if the 3 users were actually interested in a collaboration category, as the nom claims, I would presume they would jump at the chance to have it by any name, since collaboration is their goal as stated. Have you noticed I've had no response to the alternate naming suggestions which would follow the convention of Category:Wikipedians by interest? - jc37 02:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say, if you know of a better venue to discuss the disputed deletion, I'm all ears. I don't want to second guess motives. If people want to self identify on Wikipedia as something, I'm not convinced it is my place to tell them not to. I'll leave that to consensus. I think the three users might be interested in a collaboration category with a specific name, and I'm not sure it's my place to tell them otherwise either. regardless of whether some people are retrying the cfd, I still think it was a bad close and I think that's what we're supposed to assess here, and I think the community blew it twice on this. Hiding T 02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete all - I have little to no interest in or use for user categories and indeed find them almost uniformly silly. However, the debate on these categories resulted in no consensus. I am also troubled by the continual re-nomination of the categories in the hopes of, as one commentator called it, "out-stubborning" the proponents. And for the record, dismissing sexuality issues as "who people like to have sex with" is indicative of an extremely low level of understanding of the subject matter. Otto4711 (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note my comments to Hiding above. - jc37 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had not intended to imply that the debate itself was closed no consensus (obviously it wasn't since the categories were deleted). To clarify, in my opinion the debate should have been closed as no consensus, the closing admin was in error to close it as delete, the arguments for deletion were not strong and the deletions should be overturned. Otto4711 (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even in light of there already having been a DRV on the subject, which endorsed the closure? - jc37 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even in light of that discussion because consensus can change. And consensus that was no consensus absolutely can change. I find it more than a little amusing that the deletion of categories that came about only after repeated attempts to delete them is being defended with no regard to the notion of changeable consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse again - This has already been discussed at DRV once and upheld. I see nothing here to indicate that the facts surrounding this case have changed to justify this going through DRV again. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so identifying by use of Category:American Wikipedians is certainly plausable while identifying by use of Category:Queer Wikipedians isnt, correct? -- ALLSTARecho 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted above, if you have an issue with a Wikipedian category please feel free to nominate it for discussion. - jc37 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had an issue with the cat itself, I would. I'm making a distinction. -- ALLSTARecho 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a facile and redundant argument. If you believe there is a double standard operating, but want both categories kept, why on earth would you nominate the second category? Hiding T 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who nominated anything here? We're talking about the Queer Wikipedians cat that's already been deleted. -- ALLSTARecho 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jc was asserting that if you want to recreate this category because another category similar to it exists, you should instead nominate the other category for deletion. At least, that is how I read the comment, and why I have responded as I have. I believe if you want to recreate a category that was previously deleted, you come here and ask. Hiding T 01:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, but close enough. Though "for discussion", rather than "for deletion", noting that CfD/UCfD are discussions with many possible outcomes, and are not keep/delete dualism debates. - jc37 01:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I hadn't considered the fact that someone who couldn't understand why "something" exists whilst "something else" they thought should and was similar but was deleted would be most bothered about wanting to rename the something. I'll bear that in mind in future. Hiding T 02:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm aside, such a discussion is actually going on right now, which (I think) proves the point. Whether the nom was in "bad faith" or not, the topic is being discussed by others, and not all proposals are keep or delete. - jc37 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already commented there, but thank you for the pointer. Hiding T 02:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite and quote a Wikipedia policy which would prohibit the use of this category. Hyacinth (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, WP:NOT. It's been established in over several years of discussions, which involved many different Wikipedians, that Wikipedian categories should not be used for "feel-good" socialising, but instead as navigation tools (which is what categories are) for collaboration and contribution.

In addition, naming conventions for the categories is by convention of those already in the categories. This is intended to cut down on the bureaucratic overhead of creating a naming convention for every parent category. (Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.)

Based on that, in reading your nomination, at least, your proposed category should follow the naming convention of: "Category:Wikipedians interested in <x>" - In this case, presumably "LGBT issues". Which gives a name of: Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues. Such a category would presumably not be nominated for deletion, as the inclusion criteria would thus be clearer in its naming. - jc37 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - As Jc37 notes above, there are much better names for such a category if collaboration is the true intent of its creation. As named, this category discouraged those who were interested about collaborating on such topics, but were not queer themselves. Categories like "American Wikipedians" have been allowed based on the understanding that "basic demographic information" via user categories is allowed. Is sexual orientation basic demographic information? That's debatable. I like to determine that by asking "Would a lender ask this information for a loan application? In this case, no. VegaDark (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But out of interest, weren't the relationship and age categories deleted? Lenders ask about that. Hiding T 01:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were other concerns leading to the deletion of those, AFAIK. Also I think only the age categories for those under 18 were deleted, I think categories grouping Wikipedians in the decade they were born were allowed, last I checked at least. VegaDark (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Age related cats aren't jumping out at me from Category:Wikipedians. I recall the under 18 one's going, that caused a stir. Still never mind. No harm done. Ta. Hiding T 02:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete I think Hyacinth has demonstrated that this category can be and in fact has been used to further the interests of the project. That it could also function as a sort of social network (though we lack evidence that it does) is irrelevant. Just linking to WP:NOT isn't enough — the unrebutted evidence shows that this category is a collaborative tool, and there's no reason to think it has costs that outweigh that benefit. atakdoug (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the justification for categories based on "basic demographic information"? Hyacinth (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently consensus changed since then. Hyacinth (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems comfortable enough to decree consensus and majority rules when one isn't the minority and a small one at that. Personally this seems to me to fall under WP:IAR as it seems to be hurting no one unless jealousy is a factor to which I have no immediate writable answer. Benjiboi 18:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't see anything different this go-round. --Kbdank71 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Can't see any reason that this is helpful to the project, even after evaluating the arguements. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What arguments? Please cite a policy or reason. Hyacinth (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore I agree in all respects with Otto. If there's anything clear, its there is no consensus of this sort of category. I can never imagine using any personal-identity or interest category myself, but let others do as suits them. If there's a better name, suggest a change, not a deletion. there is not the least reason to think this has been used or will be used to harm the encyclopedia, or for lobbying. We should delete only user categories that have actually proved harmful. DGG (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore

Proponents of the user category deletion have cited one policy, "What Wikipedia is not" as supporting deletion without citing a policy which opposes the existence of the category, including Wikipedia:Categorization#User namespace.

Proponents of deletion have not shown any harm would occur to Wikipedia through the existence of the category.

Proponents of deletion claim that WP:NOT prevents categories which are not used for collaboration but have not proposed a method for verifying whether potential categories may be or existing categories are used for collaboration.

In contrast

Wikipedia:User page indicates that "Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project" including "organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working." The user category would assist both with organizing work and helping other editors understand each other.

Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page? does not include any restriction which would apply to the user category. It clarifies: "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." This indicates that a harm resulting from this user category must be proven.

Wikipedia:Categorization#User namespace contains no support for the user category deletion.

Given the above I must vote to restore the category. Hyacinth (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What indicates that a user category is collaborative? Hyacinth (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far only the title of the user category has been proposed as an indicator of collaborative potential. This indicates that the statement of collaborative intent should be enough to justify a user category. The only reason given that this must be stated in the category title is to reduce beurocratic overhead (to eliminate the need to actually look at the category page). Hyacinth (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How may we verify how categories are actually being used for collaboration? Hyacinth (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If "categories are designed and intended to be for navigation purposes only" then collaborative categories are as inappropriate as "feel good" ones. Hyacinth (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For several days now I've attempted to answer Hyacinth's questions. And though I continue to do so, at this point I wonder if we're watching an attempt at circular debate. And as an aside, I'm still noting that the user continues to directly ignore the non-disruptive option suggested above (by me, and others). If the intention is collaborative, then I'd suggest renaming the cat to follow current convention. But since it's already been deleted (apparently several times), then the suggestion is to create the cat of the new name which follows current convention, and please refrain from the POV nominations and other such (at least semi-)disruptive actions. The fact that they are pushing for a name which is contrary to convention, and has already gone through CFD and DRV, without showing that consensus has changed anywhere, would seem to indicate POV pushing to me. Though I'd honestly love to hear evidence otherwise. - jc37 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - While I'm not particularly fond of their existence (and in fact, would vote to delete if this were the UCfD), the intent of WP:DRV is not to determine whether or not a particular act was a good idea, but whether or not the close was done so with a viable consensus. I personally agree with User:Jc37 in that the category should have a less controversial name (the suggested Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues would be ideal). However, the UCfD should have been closed as no consensus. It is important to understand that WP:DRV is not another XfD. The only issue at hand is whether or not an XfD was closed properly, and in this case, it was not. Justin ^chat 05:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I see no difference in this and Category:American Wikipedians. Further, Hyacinth has raised valid concerns and has shown that the deletion of this cat was in error. -- ALLSTARecho 05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn / undelete. I believe this meets the criterion of being beneficial to a better WP in practical use than some of the existing / surviving cats, eg. Category:American Wikipedians. It is certainly interesting to compare the discussions on the deletions / reviews of this category with those for my request to delete the American Wikipedians one which nobody has (so far) tried to justify as useful for collaboration and only as 'fun'. --AlisonW (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, unnecessarily exclusionary, collaboration on such articles would be much better served by a category "Wikipedians interested in Queer issues", or similar. That way non-Queer Wikipedians interested in collaborating on such issues can join in, and Queer Wikipedians who aren't so interested in contributing on those topics won't be assumed to be. Looking at the original discussion, the arguments for keeping this look weak. Lankiveil (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- What about looking at this discussion? Hyacinth (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/undelete all per my comments on the English mailing list a while back (see here), reposted at User:Ned Scott/User categories. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should also look into some of these other past discussions about user categories, as I really think the WP:MYSPACE argument keeps getting cited (even now) are being applied to many cats that have no such problem. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Xoloz close of the previous DRV. Given their limited value to encyclopedia building such purely identificary categories tend to do more harm than good; even if the harm is very slight. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could the same not be said about Wikipedians interested in Narnia, Wikipedians who like Star Trek, Wikipedians who read A Song of Ice and Fire, Wikipedian San Antonio Spurs fans, Wikipedians in Texas, Wikipedians in San Antonio and Wikipedians who read Tolkien, all of which are on your user page? Those certainly have limited value to encyclopedia building and are purely identificary. I'm just sayin'... ALLSTARecho 06:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that several of those have higher collaborative potential, location for instance can be useful, but certainly not all of them. I'd have no problem seeing them deleted since I think that user categories have limited utility and high potential for abuse. They are on my user page as a result of the transclusion of userboxes which I consider a convenient way of indicating interests and biases but I don't support the categories themselves. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.