Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 3

3 August 2007

Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition

Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

AfD with a general Keep consensus prematurely closed and article deleted. Request review. Thank you. Mikebar 05:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: My late reply here is not because I did not care to participate, but rather because I was not notified of this discussion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - At best this should have been a non-consensus close. There are good arguments on both sides, and a deletion without consensus seems a bit inappropriate. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closing admin correctly determined the strength of the arguments. --Kbdank71 10:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, nothing out of line here. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Note: ^demon is the person who nominated the categories for deletion. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, yeah, that is true. Are you implying that his opinion should be less valued here? Many of the people commenting here already also participated in the original discussion, would you like to flag all of them as well? By the way, the use of that icon is depreciated here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
      • No, of course not. The strength of the arguments is to be considered. And what's wrong with that icon? :) Melsaran 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There was no consensus, and if anything the strongest argument is DGG's keep some opinion. I note that one was kept just the prior month. The reason for user categories is collaboration on building the encyclopedia, and for building an encyclopedia that the deaf/blind/colorblind, etc... can use, the best collaboration is getting input from those editors that have the condition. Looking at the discussion, deceased obviously needs its own discussion, as there were multiple opiners that said keep it delete the rest or delete it keep the rest. GRBerry 21:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I feel that this was well within admin discretion. If the categories are restored, then at least keep deleted Category:Deceased Wikipedians. The "collaborative potential" argument, used by DGG and Legis, does not apply to that. Anomie suggested retaining because it could be "useful as a subcategory of another category", but that's not a valid reason to keep, since the suggested parent cat may be useless in and of itself. Espirit15d recommend keeping the deceased category for record-keeping; as I noted later in the discussion, another page already exists for that purpose and the category cannot hope to be a complete record in any case. SqueakBox suggested keeping that one on the basis that "dead means notable". I think this was a misunderstanding, since there is no reason to expect that the editors in that category meet WP:BIO. Wikihermit suggested keeping that one, but provided no reason. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I think the same way now as I did at the CfD--this is imposing the will of a minority. I made specific arguments there for keeping Deaf Wikipedians and astigmatic and color blind and carpel tunnel, for they affect the design of the interface, including such things a user boxes and warnings. If I were to rework a warning template, I'd surely want to ask someone colour blind to examine my work. Good arguments were raised by others about working on disease related articles. A close in face of good arguments was not reasonable. If I hadn't been arguing, and had no particular view on the matter, I'd have closed either keep or no consensus. This nomination was a poor one in addition, for the factors involved in the category of deceased WPedians are very different from the others. Probably inadvertently, it was a straw man approach--include a very weak one and and affect the deliberation on them all. DGG (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, the result should have been keep. Of the delete "voters", only ^demon (the nominator) provided a real argument (little or no collaborative potential, encourages original research). The others were endorsements of the nom and/or an invalid argument ("why keep it", "is just silly"). Anomie made a pretty strong counter-argument against the "little or no collaborative potential", which hasn't been refuted. Horologium pointed out that "people who fall into these categories are more likely to have knowledge of, and access to, reliable sources for their particular conditions", a valid argument to keep. Finally, DGG cites the common "does no harm" argument, which is usually not very strong, but this time there was no compelling reason to delete.
  Also, I think that we should relist these categories for further debate, because these categories are actually widely used, so a more thorough discussion wouldn't hurt. Category:Deceased Wikipedians was an entirely different debate, of which the delete argument was stronger imo, but I think we can restore it and relist it separately, as this is of critical importance to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse self - #1) UCFD is not a simple numerical vote, but, if it was, the vote count was not swayed to keep as they were pretty evenly split. #2) The result of the debate was delete all per strength of augments. The delete votes cited concerns regarding WP:OR and a lack of legitimate collaborative potential. The keeps cited being able to collaborate easier. For this issue, WP:OR and WP:NOT#SOCIALNET tips the balance. Also, Black Falcon's comment on Deceased Wikipedians was particularly strong. The deletes also did a better job of refuting the arguments of the keeps. In my opinion, this equated to delete all. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • OR can only apply to deceased wikipedians. Anyone else is putting themselves in the category, and they know their physical condition. Plus we usualyl don't worry about OR on user pages. GRBerry 01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The OR issue affects whether a category carries any encyclopedic collaborative merit. It is not related to the user categorisation itself, but to whether a specific affiliation enables editors to contribute content beyond just their personal experiences or interpretations (i.e., original research). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - While I agree such a closure may fall within admin discretion, I think in this case the result should probably have been no consensus, or at least a relisting for more information in order to determine consensus. - jc37 10:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, reasonable closure. Sheesh, perhaps we need a WP:DRVU next? >Radiant< 08:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)