Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 27

27 August 2012

List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs

List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not think a consensus was reached in the discussion. I think that the deletion should be reverted so that reliable and notable sources can be researched for the material in the article. The article should then be discussed at a later point. I think the subject of the article is notable and I would like to hear/read the opinions of other editors on this topic. marie (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I closed the AfD as delete because, while the decision was not unanimous, the arguments against deletion all rested on verifying the existence or notability of some limited number of items on the list; no editor addressed the relevant question, raised by those recommending deletion, that the overall topic itself is not notable. This is the standard required by WP:LISTN; though those favoring deletion did not refer directly to this aspect of WP:N, it was present in their comments. Weighing the policy-compliance of the articles against the overall "number of votes", I that the net consensus was to delete. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Restore: The article was deleted per WP:LISTN, but it follows the notability guidelines 100%. It seems as if the reviewer did not actually take the time to look at the article and sources itself to make a decision. "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Sources like MTV, Entertainment Weekly, Huffington Post, Glamour Magazine, etc. wrote articles about the SUBJECT and SET, which would void the explanation of why the article was deleted. The sources found the subject of Lana Del Rey's unreleased music to be notable enough to be written about on numerous occasions. If this article isn't notable enough, well, then I'm kinda confused by the WP:LISTN requirements and Category:Unreleased Music. There were 66+ sources, some BMI/ASCAP/HFA/ISWC, but a lot were independent sources.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse The closer was correct with his reading of policy; that just because the items in a list are individually notable doesn't mean the topic of the list is notable. ThemFromSpace 15:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• The topic was obviously notable when Huffington Post, Entertainment Weekly, etc. thought articles about multiple songs were notable. Some articles were about individual songs and some were about a group of songs deeming her unreleased music the subject set of the article. And I don't even see this being done with List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, which is a featured list.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Commenta Searching for others [1]" I see no particular consistency. The decisions at AfD seem to depend upon the participation more than anything rational. but this is not unusual for fan-related material, whether or not encyclopedic. Personally, I do not see the point of splitting this: a section in the discography would seem more sensible, I can also see a list of Songs written by ____, with a section for those released by other artists--that would be as standard a thing as any list of works by a writer, and I see no reason songwriters should be treated differently. We've currently been splitting such bibliography pages for literary authors, and I've even argued for it, but upon reflection I think they might be better as an integral part of the main article, which would avoid duplication , as many works will be covered there also. That the Britney Spears list is FL seems very odd to me, especially with its unnecessary & duplicative use of color for what is shown perfectly by the symbols used also. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse (Please note I took part in both previous nominations). This discussion should be taken in context with List of Lana Del Rey songs which was closed as keep by the same admin. Subject to WP guidelines and policies, there is nothing in the deleted list that couldn’t and shouldn’t be in “kept” article. That was my position in the first nomination, but due to closing admin’s comments, The result was no consensus. No prejudice toward a future merge discussion., not the second nomination. IMO this whole discussion was never really about content, but article title space and how to big up (and possibly do down) the artist. Finally as per DGG, not sure “unreleased” can exist in separate article space and a number have been deleted over the course of the AfDs for this list.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Actually it was a no consensus. Just to save everyone from looking.--MrIndustry (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse: Closure was done on the basis of policy and not requests by various parties to let the page be an exception to any of those policies because of any special case the writer of the songs may be.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  If it's based on policy then it's a keep. I'm not sure if you read the policy or not.--MrIndustry (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  AFD is not a majority vote. WP:BLP and WP:LISTN take precedence over a bunch of people saying "we need to keep this article because it's important".—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  I'm going to try to be as nice as possible, but did you even read what I said? Your comment is out of nowhere. Looking at WP:LISTN, it qualifies. So...? I think this needs to be a speedy restore. I'm not sure if you're trolling or what?

  Please read the following quotes from WP:LISTN:

  "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."

  "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."

  ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent."

  So can you guys stop right now and restore this? This is really annoying. --MrIndustry (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not do demands, MrIndustry. "set by independent reliable sources...", well now, let's see. You had dead links, youtube videos, ASCAP entries which were dead, and by the time most of the cruft and like was removed, you were down to practically nothing - since it fell under BLP too, that left it barely verifiable. I participated in the AFD, and I Fully Endorse closure as listed. Fish^Barking? 00:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Facts are not demands. You obviously didn't check on the article either. There were NO YouTube links other than two which were from Lana Del Rey's official YouTube. There were no dead links other than ASCAP which could have been replaced. I was down to nothing? I'm sorry, but everyone can go look at the article and see sources such as Entertainment Weekly, MTV, Glamour Magazine, The Hollywood Reporter, Huffington Post and much more. I love how you guys ignore these sources on countless occasions. Can you please explain which part of WP:BLP it violates as well?--MrIndustry (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  And yet all of those other sources pointed back to YouTube bootlegs.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Doesn't matter. They still had critical reception of the song. You expect articles to be allowed to post unreleased music? Let's move back to List of unreleased Britney Spears songs. Britney's article isn't notable whatsoever, I mean, she doesn't even perform the songs and never will. Lana's is a part of her past and still performs the songs. Britney's article also has 31 dead ASCAP links. Would you like to play this game? --MrIndustry (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Was it critical reception or "Hey look at this new leaked Lana Del Rey song someone on YouTube found"? And I can't really do anything to the Spears article until a precedent gets set here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Since Britney Spears and Lana Del Rey have basically the SAME references, except Lana Del Rey has more notable ones. Here's an example of List of unreleased Britney Spears songs using a link that refers to YouTube. MTV Buzzworthy And here's an MTV Buzzworthy again with Lana Del Rey. MTV Buzzworthy. Critical reception.--MrIndustry (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Er..."So can you guys stop right now and restore this? This is really annoying." - Now you correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks very much like a demand that we pack this shit up and put your article back. No? As I said, Wikipedia doesn't do demands. Fish^Barking? 02:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  So both articles are probably not worth keeping, but a proper decision still needs to be made here before moving onto any other deletion discussions. I think "Delicious", "Big Bad Wolf", and "Ghetto Baby" are perhaps the only ones that would possibly receive any coverage based on the references I went through (and even then I severely doubt that). We certainly would not be covering the entirety of the unreleased catalog of Ms. Grant in her various personae..—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Who gave List of unreleased Britney Spears songs the featured list? I think they would beg to differ. Also, what about List of unreleased Michael Jackson material. He's more well known as a person, but it's the same thing. And those are not the only songs with critical reception.--MrIndustry (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Additional comment, WP:SPS "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." For the List of unreleased Michael Jackson material. --MrIndustry (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  WP:SOFIXIT—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure I'm doing that right now. :) --MrIndustry (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse I'm usually up for including darn near anything related to notable music artists: I tend to want to keep articles for just every album and every single. But an article of unreleased songs from someone who's only recorded two albums is just plain silliness. Simply put, outside of iconic artists with massive cultural impact (like Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson), unreleased stuff is out of scope for a general-interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Do remember she still performs these songs and it's not like she has 5, she has well over 2 albums worth of songs. She had previously unreleased Sirens, and another called Rock Me Steady. I wouldn't be so argumentative towards this subject if she had rarely any songs, but she has a large unreleased discography that makes her who she is.--MrIndustry (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse per Starblind and others. The sourcing is just not strong enough for what is being sourced. Insomesia (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  What other sources would you like? I included top news sites.--MrIndustry (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment since there have been no additional comments, I want to place this information for the reviewer to read easily.

From WP:LISTN: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent."

This article follows WP:LISTN, so I'm unsure why it was nominated for not following this. The article does not have any YouTube links (other than Lana's official which is acceptable), the sources provide critical reception to the songs. They are independent of the subject and also talk about Lana Del Rey's unreleased music as a set. People are also claiming it violates WP:BLP, but I have yet to see anyone say why. I see complaints of sources above, but the sources are top news sites, so I'm shocked to see them trying to make claims. Like List of unreleased Britney Spears songs and List of unreleased Michael Jackson material, Lana Del Rey's unreleased discography seems notable enough to have its own page, if not more notable. Britney's sources are the same, if not less notable than Del Rey's, and Michael's sources are a book. So anyone trying to claim sources must be oblivious. --MrIndustry (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The article had all of these bad links until I went through and removed all of them to show that there was nothing useful for the article because every other link was broken or did not show that the listed items do anything other than exist. Other articles are probably worse than the Lana Del Rey one, but they haven't been looked at. All I do know that from the Lana Del Rey page was that every news source that you added was no better than the YouTube bootlegs. The nature of sources always need to be looked at, beyond the fact that the publisher is considered reliable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Keyword: HAD, the sources are notable. We've already discussed this so why are you bringing it up again? The sources included critical reception and not all had bootlegs. Your argument is invalid because I can go through every source on wikipedia and 99% of them, I can find a YouTube link to a bootleg on the website. End of conversation. --MrIndustry (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources cannot be notable. They can be reliable. And this is in regards to the nature of the sources used on this article. Outside of dead links to song databases and two postings of demos to the official YouTube channel, all that's left are reliable sources posting links to illegally uploaded YouTube videos. And it's already been determined that we at Wikipedia cannot use those as sources. There was no critical reception of these songs. None were examined in any feature other than being "Hey, this is that cooky Lana Del Rey before she got famous", other than perhaps her cover of that one other song that wasn't even a single by another artist.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are very condescending and very wrong. I've already proved this wrong. You're a broken record - I'm out. But here's me proving you wrong, again. "Since Britney Spears and Lana Del Rey have basically the SAME references, except Lana Del Rey has more reliable* ones. Here's an example of List of unreleased Britney Spears songs using a link that refers to YouTube. MTV Buzzworthy And here's an MTV Buzzworthy again with Lana Del Rey. MTV Buzzworthy. Critical reception." See the critical reception and no YouTube? There's a link to another article, but that doesn't count. I've proved all of you wrong in these posts. This is just going to turn into another pointless thread. I hope the reviewer actually reads this rather than basing it off accusations. And if you claim there's no precedent for unreleased songs, make one before reviewing this. --MrIndustry (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse. Nothing wrong with Qwyrxian's policy-based closure. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Gay Wikipedians

Category:Gay Wikipedians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category is obviously extremely important to many wikipedians. I came upon it, and saw that it was created as a redirect to Category:LGBT Wikipedians. I took it upon myself, without having knowledge that it was previously deleted, to remove the redirect, and add the category to a few gay-male-specific templates and userboxes; It immediately gained over 270 members with several others adding themselves over the next few days before User:VegaDark redirected it to Category:LGBT Wikipedians explaining to me that it had previously been discussed and deleted/redirected to the LGBT category.

To place everyone into the catch-all category of Category:LGBT Wikipedians is a gross disservice to all who belong within the community and diminishes the importance of the subgroup. I feel that every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender wikipedian deserves to be able to freely use categories that enable them to find and collaborate with people of similar points-of-view, world-experience and a mutual understanding of the social and political issues that are not identical to each subgroup; an issue that is basically non-existent for the straight majority who, with little or no conscious effort are able to find others that share their world view by virtue of operating with a straight-is-default mentality. This is luxury that we lack and is only complicated by grouping /everyone/ into LGBT.

The closing argument by wikipedia administrator User: Xoloz stated 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.

As stated above, the categories do indeed contribute value to the encyclopedia by allowing people to find and collaborate with those that share experiences, points of view and interests relevant to their current research and page projects. Comparing sexuality to a zodiac sign and a "status symbol" is an offensive diminution of the importance with which we hold our self-esteem and individuality.

As for the introduction of factionalism, there are many categories that do just that. In fact, by virtue of not being all-encompassing, every category technically creates a group of individuals that are and are not included. Does this mean that Religious Wikipedians shouldn't have an associated category? No, it doesn't. Ncboy2010 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - A userbox or some other userpage notice is fine for self-declaration. The purpose of Wikipedian categories is collaboration, not notification. The collaborative category is Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues. As has been stated many, many times, one does not need to be LGBT to collaborate on LGBT-related topics. We're all Wikipedians here. And the use of LGBT has long standing consensus. See also WP:WikiProject LGBT. And note: This looks like an attempt at XfD 2. This does not look to meet the criteria of a DRV. - jc37 12:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• List at CfD exactly per the reasoning in the DRV immediately below. Irrespective of what we used to do years ago, it's reasonable to have a fresh discussion at this point.—S Marshall T/C 13:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn. Category:LGBT Wikipedians is too big. Over 1,400 users are listed in that category, so splitting it in subcategories will help. We have Category:Christian Wikipedians with 22 subcategories, including Christian anarchist Wikipedians‎, Esoteric Christian Wikipedians‎, Christadelphian Wikipedians‎... Double standards?--В и к и T 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• List at CfD - I don't actually remember past discussions on this topic, so it was probably a while ago... Time to revisit. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jc37, and delete the existing LGBT category that should have been deleted long ago but was recreated out of process. As Jc points out, this is an identifying category, not a collaboration category. Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues is much more likely to actually do so. In fact, I would imagine it's rather insulting to a gay person to suggest that everyone of them can be grouped together and have some sort of collaborative interest by the mere fact they happen to be attracted to a particular sex- and, even if that were true, we would run in to original research problems. VegaDark (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Getting back to the root of the issue, how on earth does the ability to search for users who are attracted to a particular sex benefit the encyclopedia? VegaDark (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn or relist I see no issue with self-identification categories on Wikipedia. Encouraging users to express themselves freely without recourse should lead to a more collegial editing environment. And if ever a user's membership in this category were to cause concern concern, the scrutiny should then be applied at those making the judgement rather than those choosing to self-identify.ThemFromSpace 15:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  Also noting that this category should be placed within the LGBT category, along with other similar categories of self-identification (bisexual, lesbian, etc) and that this category is appropriate because some members of the LGBT umbrella prefer a more specific label than the catchall term. ThemFromSpace 15:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn. If editors choose to describe themselves in various ways, knowing that can aid collaboration. I have consistently argued against social features on Wikipedia that detract from its mission as an encyclopedia, but the limited degree of interpersonal knowledge provided by categories that many people here and elsewhere consider critically important for self-definition can be helpful, if only to their feeling of community--and making clear our extraordinary diversity. Preventing their use for those who want to use them is in my opinion an undue intrusion into self-expression. (I agree with Vegadark that there are finer distinctions possible among both straight and gay, but there are advantages in not being overly specific--there is a point at which it would detract from our basic purpose.) DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  (ec) I realise it may be considered an old saw by now, but it's no less true: We're not here for self-expression. We're here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. And besides that, editors can "self-express" on their user page through a userbox or other userpage notice. Categories are for navigation. There is no collaborative need for such a category. - jc37 17:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

categories in mainspace are for navigation. Categories in user space are for collaboration. We are here to build content, but more specifically we are here to build content by working together. Self-expression is part of collaboration--we need at some level to some degree to know one another. I think to a very limited degree, but it would extend to basic things like this. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. One doesn't need to be in a category to foster collaboration. If you want to collaborate, join a wikiproject. Also, just because you're in a category doesn't mean you are interested in collaboration. Most people who use the X wikipedian categories use them for nothing more than a way to state who they are at the bottom of their user page. And as is mentioned above, you don't have to belong to x wikipidians to collaborate on x. These categories are nothing more than a way to bring social features to Wikipedia that detract from its mission as an encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 20:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn If someone wishes to identify to a category, that is their business. Just being gay does not mean they necessarily identify with people that are LBT, nor should they be forced to categorize with a larger group because of the lack of a scope they find acceptable  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  20:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  No it's not just "their business". Categories are navigational tools which group pages through the software. If someone wants to self-identify, they can do so through editing their userpage. - jc37 20:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  There is Category:Wikipedians by religion with 121 total subcategories, including some really interesting categories like Satanist Wikipedians, [[Chabad-Lubavitch Wikipedians‎ (??), Wikipedians who follow Meher Baba‎ (???). I don't see how is categorization by religion different from categorization by sexuality?--В и к и T 21:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  Well-meaning Wikipedians repeatedly create such categories. I haven't looked in Cat:W by Religion lately, last I recall it was only a dozen or so, with a few subcats. But from your comments, I would guess it needs to be looked at... - jc37 22:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  Category:Christian Wikipedians actually encourages it: "If a page for that branch of Christianity does not exist, please feel free to create it." - htonl (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Well-meaning or not, the issue should be addressed for all categories as a matter of policy instead of singling out one group. And even if we started out with one group as an example I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to start with gay people.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  17:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Starting with? This clean up started well over 7 years ago. This one in particular was over 4 years ago. I appreciate you have an opinion, and you're of course welcome to assert it, but please understand that this is merely clean up after long standing multiple consensus discussions. You may wish to look over WP:USERCAT. - jc37 17:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Jc, do you still not realize that the purpose of this discussion is to indicate that the consensus of 4 years ago no longer holds? DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn per DGG. Insomesia (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn. Anything within reason that can help make new editors feel welcome and engaged in a collaborative effort should be permitted, and self-identification within such a category is well within reason. Rivertorch (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - It is not right that we allow users to categorize themselves based on their religious beliefs, but not based on their sexual orientation. To have a category that lists gay men can be beneficial to WikiProject LGBT studies by being able to locate users who can contribute to the expansion and development of articles relating to their identification. I would also support categories for Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Wikipedians. There are categories based on which TV shows users watch or what books they read, and surely someone's sexual identification is more important, I think it's offensive. It is important for users who are of a minority sexual orientation to be able identify with each other. NYSMtalk page 11:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Female Wikipedians

Category:Female Wikipedians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The community decision to prohibit user categorisation by gender was made by user:jc37 on 20 June 2007 and implemented by user:After Midnight the following day.[2] The categories deleted were:

• Category:Wikipedians by gender
• Category:Male Wikipedians
• Category:Female Wikipedians
• Category talk:Female Wikipedians (its just technical talk)
• Category:Transgender Wikipedians

Roughly four months ago (2012-04-21), user:Ramesh Ramaiah created Category:User female, and until yesterday it had 566 members, and most of them are due to template inclusions. e.g. [3]

Yesterday user:VegaDark deleted Category:User female citing the 2007 decision. I had a chat with VegaDark (User talk:VegaDark#Category:user female), who thinks DRV is needed. I dont disagree.

What has changed since 2007? Two things.

Firstly, I think the community now has a greater appreciation now that there is a real issue with the lack of women here. The WMF has put reducing "the gendergap" as one of its goals. Change involves going the extra mile. We should be employing every tool we can in order to ensure that new self-identified women are welcomed and supported. That is why there was a meta:WikiWomenCamp just for women in Argentina earlier this year (another one is planned for India, next year iirc?), Wikimedia is supporting Ada Initiative, Wikimedia had a wm2012:WikiWomen's Luncheon, WP:Teahouse was created and appears to be successful[4], there are academic studies targeting women (e.g. [5]), and lots of blogging[6]. Women self-identify their gender in lots of ways on their user pages, and a category is a simple way of allowing all those self-identified women to be easily found in one way. There are a multitude of different userboxes for gender, making special:whatlinkshere not very useful. User categories are unobtrusive parts of a user page, for people who dont want to use userboxen at all. Also, user categories are much more user-friendly as opposed to special:whatlinkshere.

Secondly, technology has improved. We now have two WP:category intersection tools, which means that while navigating a category full of women isnt a good use of time, it is now simple to find users who are Category:Female Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians in Australia(i.e.[7]), or Category:Female Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians interested in medicine, or Category:Female Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians by degree(i.e. [8]). And one of the category intersection tools allows many of these categories to be combined together. E.g. if an Australia female uni student is look for someone to adopt them, this is female Australians with a degree (currently: User:Ninevah & User:Kla22374).

It is also now possible to monitor changes to any page in a category, including by RSS.[9] This can be used to monitor all self-declared women's user- or user-talk pages for vandalism, flare-ups, achievements, etc. e.g. Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Wikipedians_in_Australia

Finally, to pre-empt the inevitable concerns about gender and sexuality being "too messy" to categorise, please consider that Category:LGBT Wikipedians and redirects Category:Gay Wikipedians, Category:Lesbian Wikipedians and Category:Transgender Wikipedians exist. That category was also deleted later in 2007 (Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Category:LGBT_Wikipedians) however the LGBT category was recreated by user:nathan a few months later stating "This category should not be nominated for deletion by itself. It will be seen as an attack on the part of the community that supports it.", and LGBT members rallied around it to protect the category (see Category talk:LGBT_Wikipedians). It is ridiculous that the current state of play is that LGBT are allowed a category, but women are not. They are both minorities on Wikipedia, and should be afford similar treatment. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

One more note; a fairly comprehensive list of Wikipedias with this category can be found listed in the interwikis of fr:Catégorie:Utilisateur_femme John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse my own deletion - Procedurally, this was sound. There was an old discussion over the category which resulted in delete. When I discovered a new iteration (inappropriately named, I might add - "User-x" is reserved for babel categories, not categories like this) I checked the old discussion to make sure the reasons for deletion still applied. They did. The discussion had a good showing of participants and was unanimous. The deletion made sense, all of the previous reasons still applied, and the category had been re-created out of process. G4 has no time limit, although obviously consensus can change. The way to go about seeing if consensus has changed, however, is to bring up a discussion here, not re-create the category out of process. That being said, I happy about discussing the merits of bringing back the category here. I would argue that this category is not the type of category we want or need on Wikipedia, even considering "what has changed" as mentioned above. User categories are intended to foster collaboration. There is no collaborative reason to group all females together. Also, if we add that, then we are going to of course have to have a Male Wikipedians category. Half the world's population would fit in one category, the other half of the population would fit in the other. This, IMO, falls under the all-inclusive section describing inappropriate types of user categories. The original reasons were sound, still apply, and the category should remain deleted. Users can use a userbox with the 'what links here" function to find females if they really wish to. If people don't want to use userboxes, that's their own problem. I agree reducing the gender gap is important but compromising the integrity of the user category system is not the way to go about doing so, IMO. Additionally, I'll also add that the LGBT category needs to be deleted per previous consensus deleting it and endorsing it at DRV. It's only managed to stay around because of the headache deleting it would cause, although procedurally sound and IMO beneficial for the encyclopedia to do so. VegaDark (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  No, VegaDark, I'm afraid the established custom and practice is that G4 expires by effluxion of time. DRV has never decided what the actual timescale is. But you won't be allowed to enforce a 2007 decision over good faith objections, because that would constitute one admin overruling the established principle that consensus can change. A fresh CfD will be necessary.—S Marshall T/C 08:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  Only part of that is true. Admin's are to continue to enforce G4, until they shouldn't : )

  While consensus can change, a "good faithed objection" isn't a change to consensus.

  As both JV and VD noted on VD's talk (and you even somewhat note above), a DRV (and/or CFD) is needed to indicate a change in consensus. - jc37 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  DRV has consistently refused to enforce the outcomes of five-year-old discussions, Jc37. I'm quite sure that it won't enforce this one. A CfD is necessary to show that consensus has changed, but any good faith user has standing to make that CfD happen.—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  While it may be what you meant, that's not quite what you said above : )

  Anyway, from your follow up clarification, I don't think that you and I disagree on the process of WP:CCC. Thanks for the clarification. - jc37 12:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  Well, I think it's exactly what I said, but I'm sorry if I accidentally confused you.—S Marshall T/C 13:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn: I read VegaDark's argument above and don't see a single reason for deleting the categories other than process wonkery. Of course gender identification, especially for women, has the chance to promote collaboration and the opportunity to connect people with similar interests. I'm afraid the argument about "all inclusive" is not persuasive, since we know that women editors make up less than 10% of all Wikipedia editors. As for the LGBT category, I think it's obvious that this category provides many of the same benefits: it allows people in a minority (of editors) group to identify and contact each other, to work together, to support each other, and to strengthen the community. The argument for deleting these categories boils down to deletion for its own sake, something hopefully others can see past. Nathan ^T 11:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  "deletion for its own sake"? No. it's an issue of overcategorisation, for one thing. This can lead (has led) to splitting all Wikipedian categories by gender. - jc37 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - As the original closer, looking over the past CfDs (and in this case UCfDs), I think that JV's points above indeed fall under the "new situation"/"new information", which is typically required for a Relist at XfD. I could support this premise as long as this is limited to only the specific category Category:Female Wikipedians (and Category:LGBT Wikipedians), and does not lead to splitting anything else by gender/sexuality. So we shouldn't see things like: Category:Female Wikipedians interested in X, etc. - jc37 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  In regards to "all-inclusive". Normally, I would agree, except in this case, I can weakly agree that this could fall under Wikipedia:Systemic bias. - jc37 13:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Relist. It's been five years and a credible argument has been made that circumstances have changed. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn or relist Echoing my comment above: I see no issue with self-identification categories on Wikipedia. Encouraging users to express themselves freely without recourse should lead to a more collegial editing environment. And if ever a user's membership in this category were to cause concern concern, the scrutiny should then be applied at those making the judgement rather than those choosing to self-identify.ThemFromSpace 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn. To the extent editors want to describe themselves here in various ways, knowing this aids collaboration. A special argument was given that this particular category especially aids integration, and I think it's valid. I have consistently argued against social features on Wikipedia that detract from its mission as an encyclopedia, but the limited degree of interpersonal knowledge provided by categories that many people here and elsewhere consider critically important for self-definition can be helpful, if only to their feeling of belonging here. Preventing them for those who want to use them is in my opinion an undue intrusion into self-expression. (Male WPedians would be a good category too. It does not exhaust the universe of WPedians here as it would for mainspace bios, because not all male WPedians would choose to join it. Quite a number prefer to be nonspecific or totally anonymous, and many who do specify it somewhere, deliberately do not list themselves in any personal characteristic categories at all (like myself). DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. "Hey women, please come edit the Wikipedia, because whereas before you could self-identify as a female, now you can do it with a category!" Really? This is what's going to fix the gender gap? A category? Pull the other one. As I state above in the gay wikipedians DRV, wikipedian categories are not well used for collaboration (collaboration for years being the main argument for keeping wikipedian categories around). And as I see in this DRV, even that pretense has been dropped in favor of nothing more than self-identification. Not needed for editing the encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 20:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  The argument is that self identification helps collaboration, for those who choose to use it. All that could be said in opposition is that you don't think it would work for you. I don't want it for myself either, but that's no reason not to allow it for those whom think it would help them DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  If that's the case, where do we draw the line? As soon as we allow gender categories and sexual preference categories, the line becomes very blurry about what should be allowed vs. not allowed. How about age? Those categories have long been settled as non-collaborative as well. The best rule of thumb is ask two questions - "Would there ever be an encyclopedic purpose for specifically seeking out users in such a category?" and "If yes, is there a better name the category could have that would better represent the category is for collaboration?" The answer to this first question, for me, is no, and even if there is some sort of collaboration that can occur (let's pretend for a second that all females would be presumed interested in collaborating on the Feminism article), then a better, more collaborative name for the category would be Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics relating to feminism, because there could both be males interested in collaborating on this topic, and because in reality not all females would be interested in collaborating on the feminism article. Why beat around the bush and hope for "indirect" collaboration when we have a perfectly good scheme of creating on-its-face collaborative categories? VegaDark (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  In the DRV opening statement I have included examples of Wiki events which are for women only. AdaCamps by Ada Initiative have been supported by WMF and WMAU (and maybe others). The Wikimania's inclusion of a wm2012:WikiWomen's Luncheon was a decision of the Wikimania committe. meta:WikiWomenCamp was supported by WMAT, WMAU, and WMDE and attended by Sue Gardner from WMF. Now it is true that these events arnt' intended to directly result in collaboration on the encyclopedia, however they do help women learn about each other and the issues they face in this male dominated environment, and support each others activities. Survey's are also checking whether these women are being harassed (e.g. meta:Editor Survey 2011/Women Editors) While indirect, they are useful ways to support women who contribute content to this encyclopedia. Note that a "Female Wikipedians" category does not compete with interest categories, such as Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics relating to feminism. We can have both categories, and contributions can choose one or more that they wish to be a member of. It is analogous to "Christian Wikipedians" as a self identification category. I don't want to see a proliferation of self identification categories, but I do want to see basic characteristics allowed for, and gender is part of that. IMO categorisation by age is also fine, and it is implemented without drama in many other Wikipedias (Obviously care is needed for categorisation of minors) - they typically implement it as categorisation by decade, however categorisation by demographic "generation" would also be acceptable.(e.g. Gen Y) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  ... and "Not needed" is the same as "Verboten"?—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  Due to technical overhead for categories, among various other reasons, "not needed" indicates "shouldn't use". Using categories as "bottom of the page notices" has long been frowned upon, especially when someone can add the information to the page without using a category. This is true of all pages, not just userpages. - jc37 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  I'm intrigued! What's the technical overhead, exactly, and could you please enumerate the various other reasons?—S Marshall T/C 21:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  I agree that "not needed" doesn't indicate "shouldn't use", for userspace categories. We apply it to mainspace because a categorisation can be read by our readers as an authoritive unquestionable fact, and it sits there without explicit reference. When "not needed" for mainspace, but still useful, we use hidden or talk page categories. There is also then need for categories to be someone useful for navigation, despite the limit clunky capabilities, and so there is a restriction against overcategorisation. These limitations do not so readily apply to userspace, to self-categorisation by users. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  Whatever answer which will avoid yet another round of argumentative questioning on your part. --Kbdank71 21:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  There's a helpful graphic at Paul Graham (computer programmer)#Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn or Relist (no preference between these two outcomes). Five years, the community changes, and there have definitely been changes in the community's concern about the editor gender imabalance. There's enough reason, in my view, to at least reconsider the question. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom. Categories have utility here easily exceeding that of userboxes. Agree with Jc37 that this does not generalise to "Category:Female Wikipedians interested in X", for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  I do not think anyone is now arguing for such intersections in user space. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn - Identity is an extremely personal decision and all efforts should be made to accommodate personal preferences.

--BXM 12:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)