Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 8

Super Bowl XLIX – Done by deleting admin shortly after request was filed. – lifebaka++ 23:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

History-only undeletion. It is currently a redirect as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Bowl L... I reached out to the closing admin but have not heard back. ~ Paul^T+/_C 20:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian singer-songwriters – Relist for further discussion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

When I first created the category, I had named it User singer-songwriters instead of Wikipedia singer-songwriters. At the time of its creation, I didn't know it had to be Wikipedian and not User. I was never contacted about the first review so I couldn't do anything about it. I found it missing one day and upon investigation, I found the review. I had attempted to re-create the category Wikipedian singer-songwiters and each time it was deleted without a discussion or even so much a notification. So I am asking that this category be allowed to be recreated so that other WIkipedians who are singer-songwriters like myself can find this category and add themselves to this category. Thank you. Jeremy (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Jeremy (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split debate with one voter suggesting the catagory should be renamed as above and G4'ed 3 times since as recreation. The deleting admin on each occasion was the one that nominated the original category so I would consider them too involved to delete this without at least a second look by an uninvolved admin. Therefore permit recreation and relist as editorial discretion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I said rename or delete. Black Falcon, knowing me well, probably knew my first preference was delete (but only worded it the way I did in case some people showed up to try and keep it, we would at least accomplish a name change), and personally I would have closed it as delete if I were him also. Further, I'll note the original discussion was open nearly an entire month without more participation, so relisting would have been futile. Finally, I see no problem with me having deleted the categories, unless we are prepared to start a rule that nobody can ever speedy delete a category as G4 based on a nomination they made, which I think would be a bad idea (I've done so plenty of times without issue). VegaDark (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another DRV from the crazy funhouse world of CfD. I'm going to channel Stifle and run with "abstain" because CfD, while not actually broken, is cracked.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for more input. By the way, merely pointing out how you think CFD is "broken", or in this case, "cracked", doesn't actually fix anything. It's just disrupting to make a point, and it doesn't help resolve this DRV, or CFD in general. --Kbdank71 13:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The continuing deletion of categories without community consensus (consensus that cannot be demonstrated at any CFD due to its disconnect with the community) is wrong. The system should be left to evolve or crash. The few wikipedians trying to maintain the broken system are wallpapering structural cracks. Without clear consensus, as there wasn't here, categories shouldn't be deleted. Overturn --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn per Smokeyjoe. No consensus for deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for more input. While we allow CfDs to close with little to no input, due to the fact that that's exactly what most of them get and they'd never close otherwise, we should reopen them at a reasonable objection to the outcome. I note that overturning, in this case, is a bad idea because there's nothing obvious to overturn the outcome to. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator and speedy deleting admin - First of all, When I nominated this long ago my first preference was to delete, but it was hit or miss at UCFD at that time so I wanted the softer option of renaming, as that was a better option than to nominate it for deletion and have it result in no consensus or keep. Second of all, Hundreds of nominations, at CFD and elsewhere, are decided by a minimal number of participants, so I wouldn't consider this procedurally at odds whatsoever, but I wouldn't object to a relisting. Third, my speedy deletion of this category was 100% within the wording and spirit of WP:CSD#G4, as the new category didn't satisfy the original reasons the category was deleted in the first place. I don't consider myself "too involved" to have speedy deleted the category whatsoever, as I was following the consensus of the UCFD discussion. In sum, the original closure and the subsequent speedy deletions were 100% procedurally sound, but I wouldn't object to a relisting due to minimal participation in the UCFD. VegaDark (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn per Smokeyjoe. No consensus for deletion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from CfD closer: In light of the fact that the discussion involved only two users, I have no objection to relisting—it doesn't make sense to me to actually "overturn" the result of a unanimous nomination—though a non-process-related reason for why the category is useful would be appreciated. So, I endorse the original CfD close of a unanimous discussion, endorse the subsequent speedy deletions per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and support relisting the discussion for more input. In fact, were it not for the few votes to "overturn", I would have already closed this DRV, recreated the category, and reopened the discussion at CfD. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up comment: In response to the comments that "CfD is broken", I would like to note the facts of this case:
  1. A category was tagged for deletion and a nomination initiated at the proper venue;
  2. The discussion remained open for a full month, much more than the 5-day minimum that was in place at the time;
  3. In that month, there was not a single objection to the nomination;
  4. The category was recreated out-of-process and deleted per the appropriate process (speedy deletion criterion G4);
  5. Several months later, an editor initiated a review request at the proper venue citing a valid reason (low participation);
  6. Both the original CfD closer (me) and the speedy deleting admin (VegaDark) consent to relisting the category for more discussion; and
  7. The original CfD closer would have readily relisted the discussion without even the formality of a DRV if he had been approached.

What exactly is broken? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_2009#There_is_a_problem_at_WP:CfD. See especially "There is a perennial problem with categorization and since the problem has not been addressed, it creates a perennial problem with CfD... SamuelWantman 09:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the discussion, though I didn't come upon it until after it had ended. It was a most interesting and insightful debate, and I'm very glad that it took place. I am in agreement with you and Good Ol'factory in the belief that Sam's observations pinpoint the problem. There is disagreement—some of it is fairly superficial and some of it is rather deep-seated—about the "what", "how", and "why" of categories, and naturally this leads to disagreements during CfD discussions. However, on most issues and in most discussions editors seem to be able to find common ground.
I think that the actual CfD process works fairly well, taken in the context of Wikipedia processes in general. Most discussions are closed without excess controversy, decisions are implemented in a timely manner, and backlogs generally don't get out of hand. In addition, while many discussions receive relatively few comments (say, 3–5 participants), CfD overall sees participation from many editors.
The process is not to blame for the fact that CfD participants sometimes have irreconcilable differences of opinion, and of course CfD participants are not to blame for the fact that they can have legitimate disagreements. The fact that CfD sometimes produces results with which we personally disagree—and I'm sure that everyone, regardless of their philosophy on categories, can point to plenty of CfD outcomes that they disagree with—does not mean that the process is failing.
I take a measure of comfort from the fact that no decision at CfD is irreversible; if we decide later on that a particular decision was less than optimal, it can be undone. I also take comfort in the thought that many of the disagreements editors currently have about categories will go away on their own over time as additional functionality is added to the MediaWiki software.
So, my view on this issue is that while the CfD process is undoubtedly imperfect, it serves its function quite well. (Please forgive the length of my comment, which is ultimately only tangentially related to this deletion review; I truly did not intend to write so much). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original deletion and endorse speedy deletions - regardless of the unsupportable claim of the cracks in the CFD process (that resulted in a whopping 2/3 of one percent of all CFDs for the last month being brought here, oh the humanity), there was clearly nothing wrong with either this CFD or these speedy deletions. Where the process is broken is in the continual opening of DRVs with no effort made to address the issues with the deleting admin. This nominator at least made some effort to address the admin who did the speedy deletions, however cursory. If those trying to score points in DRV category discussions by addressing the supposed brokenness of CFD spent the same effort addressing the actual brokenness of a DRV system that doesn't bother abiding by its own rules then perhaps some of the crippling 2/3 of one percent of CFDs brought here might trickle off. Otto4711 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the actual brokenness of a DRV system"? Replied at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Alleged_that_the_DRV_system_is_broken. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the rules are that someone ought to do it, not is compelled to do it and I would be very very reluctant to put any barriers to discourage people for complaining about administrative actions. We all make mistakes, and though someone is likely to get redress much easier if they ask the admin, this a/does not apply to all admins, and b/users are for various reasons somewhat intimidated by us and by Wikipedia process. if they prefer to come here, better that they complain than they go away thinking they have not had the chance for a hearing. The rule here is NOT BUREAUCRACY. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at the top of this page state: "Before listing a review request:

1) discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review." There is nothing in that instruction that says "ought to".

The page goes on to say: "Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page." Nothing in that instruction indicates that it is optional. ISTM that if a meek and mild editor is able to find his way to this page then they have demonstrated the intestinal fortitude to beard the big bad admin who closed the discussion in his den. Otto4711 (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is ISTM? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Institut supérieur de technologie et management. Or it could be "it seems to me". Alansohn (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the "please" as a strong request. (and as we see, it would have helped very much here). The general policy of NOT BUREAUCRACY over-rides your view of the wording & is always a good reason for the less formal alternative. And if it's so hard to find this page, and use it properly, that you think most people have difficulty in using it (and I certainly agree with you there), we need to make the process easier and more obvious- especially after such a procedure as CfD, which is almost unwatched except by specialists in it. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming that the second instruction to discuss it with the closing admin can reasonably be interpreted as a "strong request", the first step listed in the steps for listing a DRV cannot be so interpreted. In every other deletion-related discussion, if the listing editor skipped out a step in listing the discussion I've yet to see an admin delete the item, even if the call for deletion is unanimous, citing failure to properly follow the instructions as the reason. There is no reason why this aspect of the process should be exempted from the same standards as every other aspect. On the one hand editors complain about the number of DRVs that are opened. On the other they dismiss following the DRV instructions which would likely result in fewer DRVs being opened. It's schizophrenic. Otto4711 (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just a Fido syndrome. Fido yaps at this. He yaps at that. Sometimes it's because of this and sometimes it's because of that. But ultimately it doesn't matter if it's this or that he's yapping at. Fido must yap, so yap he does. (Not to imply that any user in particular is "Fido"—in this example, "Fido" is merely a symbol of the wikidrama-loving community as a whole.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In every other deletion-related discussion, if the listing editor skipped out a step in listing the discussion, someone fills it in for him. We complete incomplete afds routinely. I've been saying that it is not essential for a long while for a long while, and I notice that only you and Otto seem to think it actually essential. Why should we even want to discourage DRs--we ought to be encouraging them. The ability to easily complain about us admins ought to be encouraged and facilitated--trying to restrict it by rules , besides being totally against the spirit of Wikipedia, could be interpreted as a desire to avoid reviewing admin decisions. Good o', I do not exactly understand your analogy: a Deletion Review is not necessarily drama, but rather a way of providing an method that will discuss the problems and avoid it becoming drama.. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...only you and Otto seem to think it actually essential." Where do you come by the understanding that I "think it is absolutely essential"? I don't think I've said anything of the sort, here or elsewhere, probably because I don't believe it. But I do believe it's an extremely good idea and it is generally a bad idea not to, and I have witnessed a number of DRVs which could have been completely avoided by a simple courtesy question. Not doing so demonstrates an inability to read and/or follow instructions, which is never a good sign, except for the iconoclastically minded among us. As for unnecessary drama, I think it's fairly obvious that this DRV has provided far more drama than the nominator approaching the closing administrator ever would have created. But then other users complain about the number of DRVs emerging from CfD. Others perhaps prefer every disputed situation to go to DRV. The reason we can't decide collectively which side of the fence we are on is because users need to yap about something, so we yap, regardless of which approach is taken. It's easy to complain and find fault with processes when we dramatise and expand an issue beyond its necessary borders, as here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn While I do understand the zeal with which categories are deleted, there was no consensus here, and an increasingly disturbing number of such supervotes in direct conflict with consensus are only further polluting the much-tainted waters of CfD. While some believe that not contacting the closing admin in such cases is "bad form", I find it to be even worse form that the users of the categories in question are never notified by nominators and are systematically deprived of an opportunity to participate in favor of the usual class of deletionists who haunt the Categories for Deletion process. Not providing full notification and getting a more representative participation is "bad form", but we have an opportunity to undo this disruption by relisting and soliciting broad participation here. I've pointed out numerous times that CfD is utterly dysfunctional and offered about a dozen different concrete recommendations to start fixing the mess; None have been acted on. Alansohn (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you find something hysterically amusing about the phrase 'bad form'? I only ask because in the recent Eponymous rapper categories DRV the same phrase again seemed to cause you great mirth... --Xdamr^talk 22:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I find it rather amusing from whence it comes. In the dreary world of CfD, a chance to find some mirth is hardly "bad form". Alansohn (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A CFD in which no one opposed deletion and everyone who commented was expressly satisfied by the outcome means there was no consensus? A unanimous result indicates a lack of consensus? You rail once again against the so-called "supervote" yet you would have had the closing administrator disregard the express opinions of every commenting editor to close a unanimous CFD "no consensus". Up is down, black is white, implementing a unanimous result is overriding consensus. Welcome to crazy backwards land. Otto4711 (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would one way to fix one problem with CFD, be a section of CFD which allows the proposal of category recreations? Currently the process seems to be:

Category gets deleted due to consensus at CFD
Category gets recreated
Category is speedy deleted
Repeat 3 and 4 until someone gets really angry
Drama ensues somewhere
We end up with a lot of bad blood and a DRV
The category gets relisted

Okay, I've exaggerated for comic effect, but, for me it is a very valid point that G4 creates a very unbalanced deletion tool with regards categories, because it conflicts with the idea that Consensus can change. Here's a potential new process:

Category gets deleted due to consensus at CFD
Category gets recreated
Category is speedy deleted but admin drops a note on re-creators page directing them to CFD and inviting them to list the category for recreation to see if consensus has changed. Admin, being an all-round good egg even offers to open this request given it may be technically beyond the editor.

This way wouldn't we sort of have a way of avoiding drama and a way of ensuring category deletion is held subject to the idea that consensus can change? Hiding T 12:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the category is re-created using the exact same name, before re-creation can be done the editor is presented with a []Category:User_singer-songwriters|warning message]] that he or she is re-creating a category that was previously deleted as part of a deletion discussion, along with (depending on the age of the CFD) a link to the discussion. If the editor persists in attempting the re-creation, s/he gets a second warning and a second link. How many times does an editor need to be warned before it becomes their responsibility to think, "hey, I'm getting multiple warnings here that this category's been made and deleted before, maybe I should look into this a little before going ahead with this"?
Now, in this particular instance, the re-creating editor didn't use the exact same category name, but after the first G4 deletion, the second and third re-creations garnered two warnings each that the category was a re-creation. The same editor received four different warnings that they were re-creating deleted content. That strikes me as sufficient warning.
The problem with heaping additional restrictions on G4 or any other speedy deletion is the same as to any other change to administrative functions that result in more work for the admins. There are way more editors than there are admins, admins are already overworked as it is and the process of creating material is (and rightly so) far simpler and faster than any process for removing it. While in the abstract the idea of a re-creation request page is not objectionable the implementation and execution of it is going to add an additional burden on administrative time and labor. Otto4711 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not overly swayed by the notion that we shouldn't make life "harder" for admins since in most of my time as an admin life has go harder for admins and Wikipedia has coped. However, avoiding that, let's look at this message "Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted. You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience" and consider how informative it is. What does it say to us to do if we believe the page was deleted incorrectly or if we think the page was deleted incorrectly? This is a very bad message, wouldn't you agree. Couldn't our problems be solved by writing a better message? And let's look at the behaviour here. What does the warning tell us? That we should consider whether it is appropriate? Well, if I think the category should exist, then won;t I think it is appropriate to edit? And you've also failed to address the conflict between G4 and Consensus can change. How do you propose we solve the issue there, or do you believe that consensus can not change? Hiding T 12:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've recreated several dozen articles that had been deleted, without a single problem. The article for Cozy Coupe was deleted see here) and I recreated it despite the warnings without a peep, even getting the article included in DYK. Same with Clayton Hill (see log). Only in your "crazy backwards land" is it near impossible to recreate a category without an Act of Congress. A big part of the problem is admins who only spend time with categories who view it as their job to delete with extreme prejudice, whether the category is new, old or recreated. The ratio of new articles to admins is much higher than that for new categories, and we have little issue for article recreation. The process works there, why are editors so distrusted only at CfD? Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. As if writing articles from scratch after one was deleted as vandalism and the other for failing to assert notability is even remotely similar to re-creating a category (or an article for that matter) that was deleted through the XfD process. As if simply asking the deleting admin why a re-created category was deleted instead of repeatedly re-creating it and then running to DRV instead of, again, simply asking the deleting admin about it is comparable to an "Act of Congress". Hyperbole can be an effective technique, but not when it's used over and over again in the same discussion. What would have happened had Jeremy simply asked VegaDark after the first G4 why he did it? No way to know 100% of course but given the comments here from VegaDark the category probably would have been re-created and either CFDed to check consensus or just left alone. Instead we get this protracted vitriolic battle. Otto4711 (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the point that Hiding brings up is still very important and valid. Our policies are contradictory. Procedures for re-discussing categories are broken and do not make sense, and something like Hiding's proposal is necessary for them to work as well as AfD + DRV does. G4, "Consensus can change", and "DRV is not CfD2" are not consistent. There needs to be a formal place to get consensus for deleted category recreation, at present there is no CfD2 anywhere. We could explicitly say DRV can be CfD2, or do something like Hiding suggests. In this case, asking VegaDark would have helped, but this will not always be true and can't be depended on.John Z (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close; no procedural error occurred. I see nothing wrong with a unanimous consensus of 3. There are many very specific issues on WP for which I doubt you could scrape up even 3 interested users to form a consensus. I guess admins can't win: even when they close unanimous CfD discussions, the accusations of bias are still alleged. It would be OK to relist if further input is desired (essentially to give creator a chance to give input), but I kind of doubt the result will differ. I view the speedy-deletions as a side-show distraction issue and not particularly relevant to the underlying purpose of a DRV. But yet again this entire discussion could have been avoided had a user read and followed instructions. (I know, I know—they are not mandatory, blah, blah, blah ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But yet again this entire discussion could have been avoided if closing administrators wouldn't just rubber stamp closes as "Delete" but would take the time to explain their closes in sufficient detail so that there would be no need to ask for a rationalization after the fact. (I know, I know—they are not mandatory, blah, blah, blah ...) Alansohn (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's your evidence that the nominator would have been satisfied with such a "closing statement"? It's possible the user is more interested in seeing the category restored in which case no amount of explanation could satisfy. (In fact, he states: "I am asking that this category be allowed to be recreated...") Without the user opining on this further, I don't think your assumption is safe. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What's your evidence that the closing administrator would have responded satisffactorily to any pre-DRV request? A big part of the problem we have at CfD is the near complete unwillingness to bother to explain actions by closing administrators. Mere mortals are left to wonder why some votes were tossed out and others given arbitrarily greater weight, magically matching the closing admins preconceptions and biases demonstrated at other CfDs. Just as all edits should have an edit summary, all the more so should XfD closes have detailed explanations, particularly in those cases where consensus is going to be discounted or just plain disregarded. The more likely that an another, unbiased closing admin could have decided the exact same XfD differently, the more necessary to explain the actions. Once there is an explanation, any editor who takes issue with the close or seeks additional information can request it if the information provided is insufficient. Without it, we're just playing more games. I can't recall any closing admin at CfD allowing a category to be recreated solely based on a request on the closing admin's talk page, without the closing admin requiring the added impediment of requiring an unnecessary trip to DRV. I've pursued cases that were blatantly closed incorrectly, where the closing admin acknowledged the issues and still felt the need to pass the category on to DRV. I've recreated dozens of articles that had been deleted for various reasons, without ever requiring a trip to DRV. AfD has its problems, but for the most part it works. CfD seems to have been designed to be dysfunctional. We can't even get a definition on what "defining" means from admins who decide on the term on a regular basis. Alansohn (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My evidence is the comments of the closing admin (see above). There's nothing comparable from the nominator. And as you know (or perhaps not), there's a world of difference between re-creating a category that has been deleted via a full CfD and re-creating an article when the deleted version of the article was vandalism or one that failed to assert notability. This has been pointed out before, so the same ground is being rehashed again. (Not that that's a problem or anything new, but ...) And incidentally, I have allowed re-creation of a category for which I deleted pursuant to a deletion discussion after a user inquiry. Ask Otto. (No, on second hand, don't.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It is a peculiar state of affairs when unanimity is characterised as lack of consensus. It would have been better if, per DRV's instructions, the nominator had simply approached the closing admin and saved all this drama. No objection to closing admin's desire to have this relisted, something which I think we would be better to concentrate on rather than spending any more time on this, essentially settled, issue. --Xdamr^talk 08:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion I simply see no problem here. Eusebeus (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse But black falcon makes some good points arguing for relisting. Protonk (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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