Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 27

27 August 2012

List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs – Deletion endorsed. – T. Canens (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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. FishBarking? 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. FishBarking? 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) Endorse - Due consideration was given to the quality of the sources and what they stood for. This is not an example of a snowball without consideration. --Bejnar (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse. I saw nothing wrong.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - The only thing I could find about unreleased and Lana Del Rey is a January 22, 2012 Los Angeles Times article (photo caption?) mentioning two songs and a still-unreleased album.[2] The Los Angeles Times article didn't name any songs on the unreleased album. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC) You must not be good at using Google. You can also try looking at the article for the 66 sources, or actually my links in this review. try this.--MrIndustry (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Comment (& weak endorse) Just as a frank commentary, when I saw this listing I figured that Lana Del Rey must be one of the older, extremely influential blues or jazz singers like Aretha Franklin or Della Reese. As it turns out, this is a proposed listing for a 26 year-old young woman with little notoriety outside of her fanbase to have produced the lengthy commentaries above. No offense to Ms. "Del Rey" (not her birth name), but the staggering number of words above probably take up more space than all of her lyric sheets combined. With that in mind, as her career builds over time and a significant quantity of back log becomes available, maybe then this would be a better fit for inclusion. I might suggest that using one of her surnames (as listed on her Wiki page), such as the "List of unreleased Sparkle Jump Rope Queen songs" may have a more remarkable, memorable, and noteworthy impact. Яεñ99 (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC) I thought about using "List of unreleased Elizabeth Grant songs" but since she's not notable under that name, I didn't suggest it. Although they could do that and do a re-direct for Lana Del Rey which would make more sense.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC) It's still not notable for inclusion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Holy crap. Can you shut up already? I have an actual comment towards something and you keep repeating that it's not notable. WE GET IT. YOU DON'T THINK IT'S NOTABLE. --MrIndustry (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC) But you don't realize that this is the reality about this subject matter. It's not my opinion. Wikipedia has rules and regulations concerning what is and is not allowable content and the AFD and this DRV are showing that the extensive unreleased catalog of Elizabeth Grant when she was or was not "Lana Del Rey" is not suitable for coverage on this project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC) My sources are reliable whether you (and everyone else in this DRV) think so or not. It follows Wikipedia's policies whether you think so or not. I've already explained why all of you are wrong. Thanks so much!--MrIndustry (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC) MRindustry, shouting does not make you more correct. Additionally, you may want to consider that, if a large number of experience WP users are telling you something, it is entirely possible that they may be right, and you are wrong. Also, it would help if you would try to understand what we're saying. No one is saying those aren't valid WP:RS. We're saying that the consensus was that the topic as a whole has not been discussed. While individual unreleased songs of Lana del Rey have been the subject of coverage, there has not been any coverage of the concept of a body of work called "unreleased Lana del Rey songs". And that is what is required. Again, the analogy is this: I could produce a list of People who own Range Rovers. And I could find reliable sources for it--hundreds if I stuck only to people with WP articles, thousands if I included anyone. But that would not make the topic of "Ranger Rover Owners" itself notable. That is exactly what is happening here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC) You are incorrect. Her unreleased discography has been discussed in a set in various sources. & I was not shouting. Thanks so much!--MrIndustry (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC) MrIndustry has copied the entire article in its most recent state into his sandbox. I'm not sure if this is allowed, seeing as we are pretty much deciding here that it is not fit for the article space.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC) It is. It's his sandbox, not in the mainspace. Zac  05:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC) But now he's keeping a copy so it won't be deleted, which is what we're deciding here. It's a violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE now that we're deciding it should not be an article in the first place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Not sure what you mean by "But now he's keeping a copy so it won't be deleted". He could email himself a copy of it if he so wishes to, does that make it "so it won't be deleted"? And besides, I don't see anywhere where this article was banned from being created forever. If he wishes to have it in his sandbox and keep working on the article that is fine by him. One day, if it becomes notable enough, it could be recreated. There's nothing wrong with that. Zac  06:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC) He's keeping a copy on site because the page is going to be deleted and kept deleted. It'd be fine if it was userfied but now he's just doing his best to keep the page alive. There's a reason he's doing his damnedest to keep the page from being deleted entirely. Hell, it's even been copied over to a Wikia. The transfer to his userspace is subverting the discussions we've been having and that's a disruption of Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC) You appear to be assuming extremely bad faith against this user; I suggest you tone it down. The sandbox is not causing any disruption. You may wish to take a look at a similar situation: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hahc21/Deseo. Zac  07:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC) He has been working his hardest to keep the page from being deleted and he refuses to work within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. He also refuses to acknowledge that this is a serious discussion and constantly responds to things with "lol" in the edit summary. And that page was deleted, anyway. This is not being used to construct a draft. It's being used to avoid deletion of the content he's worked hard in putting in the mainspace where it does not belong. And he took the opportunity to do this in the time period in which this discussion will be closed, rather than when it was first undeleted.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Now, we clearly is working the hardest to keep the page, but you, on the other side, are working the hardest to get it deleted. That page was deleted at the user's request; that's not the point. I will ask you once more to stop assuming bad faith on their part. If he just so happens to recreate the article after this discussion is over (and said to endorse the delete), then that's when you can say things like that, but not now. Don't assume anything. Zac  07:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Just to clarify, Ryulong, had MrIndustry asked for a copy to be userfied, as the deleting admin, I would have done so. There are no copyright violations (so long as those Youtube links stay off), it's not a BLP issue, and it's not a topic so inherently non-notable that can never be an article (i.e., I wouldn't userfy an article about my mom's cat). It is entirely possible that at some point in the future del Rey's unreleased songs could become the subject of critical review, as has happened for some other artists. So long as the draft is clearly marked as a draft, this is fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. There clearly wasn't any consensus as to whether or not the article should be deleted. Zac  06:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Uhhhh - can't we all just get along? This thing isn't a "world-shaker" anyway. Delete it and be done with it Яεñ99 (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Gay Wikipedians – Relist at CfD. – T. Canens (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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) NOTE: - Category:Gay Wikipedians was deleted as a result of the 4 October 2007 uCfD Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Sexuality and gender identification. The uCfD deletion of Category:Gay Wikipedians was endorsed at the October 10, 2007 DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Sexuality and gender identification categories. This present DRV discussion is to address the 4 October 2007 UCFD Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Sexuality and gender identification/Category:Gay Wikipedians. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 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) I understand that perspective, and would be empathetic to it, except that I have never seen "self-identification" categories used for anything more than attempts at canvassing/vote stacking at XfD. Plus, just because one may self-assert they are LGBT, doesn't mean they are interested in editing LGBT topics. We had several situations (zodiac being the largest) where it was made abundantly clear that most people in self-id cats are merely doing so for self-id reasons. Self-ID categories as such are thus merely vanity pages, and that falls afoul of WP:NOT. So with that in mind, we're better off having "interested in collaborating on X topic"-style categories. - jc37 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "never seen "self-identification" categories used for anything more than..." Yes you have. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 16, Neutral good Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance to the link. I see an assertion (which was disagreed with) that thie cat in question was a "by editing philosophy" cat. And even if we were to accept the premise of the nom, that makes it a "how I will contribute" cat, as I note below. So it isn't relevant to this discussion AFAICT. - jc37 01:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Editing philosophy is a self-identification, and a relevant one at that, and absolutely nothig to do with canvassing of XfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC) I'm happy to hear that you have never encountered people using the inclusionist category to mass canvass. Or the "against notability" one, or the LGBT one, for that matter. On the other hand, I have seen it. Many many times. - jc37 04:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Oh, I have seen it. But you seemed to suggesting that the *only* use of self-identification categories is canvassing of XfD. I dispute this as an exaggeration. I don’t however dispute that it can often be the case, nor that it is a serious concern, including for this category. I wonder, would it be workable if for self-identification catageories, if it were required that a case be made that it has a project-related purpose that is not for canvassing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC) That's the current requirement for all Wikipedian categories, per WP:USERCAT, and MANY prior discussions, and WP:NOT, for that matter. That they are to be used for a collborative purpose to build the encyclopedia. It's what I've said several times: We're all Wikipedians here, how do you want to help? And a person's race/ethnicity/descent and/or sexuality/gender and/or faith/philosophy/religion simply have no bearing on that. And honestly, I question whether it might actually be considered prejudiced to suggest that it does (I'm not saying anyone is, merely that it's an interesting question.) And that not even taking into account that we have "by interest" categories for topics related to these identifications, which makes all of these self-identification categories duplicative. I'll restate: These are just IWANTIT categories. With the followup: "If they get theirs, I want mine". It's all just possessive WP:OTHERSTUFF. - jc37 06:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC) jc37, so you are against Category:Wikipedians by religion, Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy, Category:Wikipedians by language, Wikipedians by education and nearly everything else under Category:Wikipedians except 'interest' and other project-user-relationship scaffolding? WP:Canvassing isn't dependent on a user category, and in my experience people usually use off-wiki lists of 'friends' to do canvassing. How people use lists of users is as varied as their are people who use them, and misuses (such as canvassing) have their own guidelines. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Has nothing to do with me being "against" anything. It has to do with repeated consensus over years regarding Wikipedian cats. See topical index for an overview of such discussions. And also WP:USERCAT. Oh and as far as this discussion note [[3]] - there were three deletion reviews (concerning gay and queer), over several years, all endorsed. And yes, there has been a LOT of use of Wikipedian categories for attempts at vote stacking through canvassing. (Though these days, editors are usually caught early.) - jc37 01:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Your definition of "consensus" must differ quite a lot from mine. There are currently 378 cats within Cat:Wikipedians by Ethnicity and Nationality. Are you suggesting those are all contrary to consensus and should be deleted as well? If so, this isn't the place to make that argument. If not, why single out the minority of Wikipedians who choose to identify on-wiki as gay? Rivertorch (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC) I didn't do the G4 recreation of this category, someone else did. They were then reverted. This isn't singling anyone or anything out. This is enforcing a previous concensus per policy. If there was new information that wasn't covered in the previous CfD, then I could understand the DRV being started. But there isn't, this is merely IWANTIT trying to use DRV as xfd2. Which is against the DRV guidelines last I checked. - jc37 04:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC) My point was that the existence of hundreds of categories in Wikipedians by Ethnicity and Nationality indicates a de facto consensus to allow such categories. A further point is that new information per se isn't a prerequisite for new consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC) That's like suggesting we shouldn't revert vandalism, because so much of it exists, it must be allowable. (To be clear, I'm not calling this situation vandalism, I'm making a comparison of things which have had repeated consensus to not have on Wikipedia: vandalism (on one hand) and use of Wikipedian categories merely for identification purposes (on the other).) And that without even getting into the G4 issues. I suppose I could also quote WP:OTHERSTUFF too... - jc37 06:07, 3 September 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) The "purpose of this discussion" is obviously to re-argue an XfD2. There is no "new information" that justifies this to even be at DRV. The DRV nom concerning female, below, at least has that. This, doesn't. And reading over the comments simply reinforces this. Do you see any "Overturn" comments which show anything other than IWANTIT? or ITSHOULDBEALLOWED? And I include your comments, by the way... So no, this is simply an attempt at another bite at the apple, regardless of how long it has been, which, last I checked, was against the guidelines at DRV. - jc37 22:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC) How else would we indicate that Consensus has Changed? To do that we need either unchallenged bold action (which would obviously not work on this topic), or a general discussion in a conspicuous central place. For XfDs,this is the conspicuous central place. We have previously overturned numerous older discussions on the basis that consensus can change, so why not this one? As for two bites at the apple, are you suggesting that once we decide to keep something we can never consider it for deletion? If not, why should it hold in the opposite direction? This is the rational first step to a CfD2. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC) How else? Let's see. How about not doing a G4 recreation, having it reverted then going to DRV, among other things? How about instead of all that, start a discussion somewhere (WT:CFD for example). Present your case and see if the community agrees that WP:CCC. And life goes on. BUT NOT RECREATING UNTIL CCC HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DETERMINED. Intentionally recreating a G4 is WP:POINT, running to DRV is WP:PARENT (among other things), and the whole thing is just WP:GAME. Using DRV this way when we have a LONG consensus that DRV is not to be used as XfD2, is simply wrong. - jc37 04:14, 3 September 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) They already can. Category:LGBT Wikipedians already exists. Category:Gay Wikipedians is a category redirect to that, per long convention that we do not split such categorisation, but instead use LGBT. - jc37 22:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC) That it not good enough, I am a gay man and I can't relate to lesbians and transpeople, that category is just throwing all minority sexual orientations together assuming all LGBT people are the same. That would be like forcing "Category:Catholic Wikipedians‎", "Category:Protestant Wikipedians‎", and "Category:Eastern Orthodox Wikipedians‎" to only use the blanket "Category:Christian Wikipedians". It is not justifiable to allow the 3 just mentioned subcategories (+ 19 more) for Christianity alone, but yet not allow any subcategorization for sexual identification. NYSMtalk page 23:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC) That's an arguement for deleting the LGBT cat (and also several self-identification religion/faith-related categories). And also WP:OTHERSTUFF, and IWANTIT. Nothing there which rises to the criteria of a DRV. - jc37 01:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I support the inclusion of the religious identification categories for the same reason as the sexual orientation categories, for locating users to collaborate in the improvement of their specific WikiProjects. I don't support the inclusion of this category just because "I want it" as you claim, I believe I have stated valid reasons as to why it's existence is warranted. As Rivertorch stated, something that makes new editors feel welcome and engaged in a collaborative effort should be encouraged, the existence of these self identification categories can only be beneficial. NYSMtalk page 01:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC) such categories already exist: Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues, for example. These clearly show that the intent is collaboration, and not just vanity. - jc37 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn as it facilitates collaboration. Dlohcierekim 14:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC) expansion of rationale I don't have the energy to type out all this, so I'd like to quote some of the things I'd like to say. "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) For that reason, deleting the thing "is a gross disservice to all who belong within the community."(per undeletion nom) I confess I don't see any benefit to the deletion in the first place, and "I see no issue with self-identification categories on Wikipedia.(ThemFromSpace) Some have scoffed at the catagory as a collaborative tool. The deletion nom stated, "While a userpage notice may be useful, it's not necessary to have a category identifying who the user prefers to have sex with (if any), or what gender a person prefers to identify with. . . ."(Jc37) This completely mises the importance of the category. Anyone "who would use this category self-identifies with a culture and declares a desire to find and be found by other members of the culture for collaboration."(Blue Rasberry) Yes, we are all Wikipedians, but we have all these cat's and userboxes to personalize that experience. Deleting this one diminishes that. Dlohcierekim 02:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn, keep the category This is a useful category per DGG and Nowyouseeme. VegaDark asked "how on earth does the ability to search for users who are attracted to a particular sex benefit the encyclopedia?" The category is not to announce an arbitrary action like attraction to a particular sex but to express a social affinity with a group which shares a cultural identity. The assertion is that the demographic who would use this category self-identifies with a culture and declares a desire to find and be found by other members of the culture for collaboration. This is analogous with other cultural categories like region, profession, or philosophy. There is an precedent of a long-standing community with a gay cultural identity. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC) We're all Wikipedians here. - jc37 01:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I do not understand what you mean by that. I think that you would not support the redirection of all categories in Category:Wikipedians into that one category because that would not be useful at all. Are you asserting that there is something fundamentally different about a gay cultural identity as opposed to any of the other cultural identities demarcated for collaboration with people who make themselves available as self-identified representatives of a given culture? If so, what is the difference? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I mean what I said: We're all Wikipedians here. When you interact with me, it doesn't matter what race I may be, what ethnicity I may be, what gender I may be, what faith I may choose to believe, or what sexuality. None of that matters. And Wikipedia is not a social site. We allow social niceties to a point because it can help promote positive, collegiate collaboration. Which is why people are allowed to self-identify by declarations on their user pages. But use of categories is for direct collaboration, it is not for self-identification. Another way to put it: Wikipedian categories are for how you or I intend to help, not for how you or I may describe ourselves. - jc37 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn, essentially per Insomesia (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Allow recreation - The 4 October 2007 UCFD closed didn't list a detailed reason. However, the subsequent October 10, 2007 DRV close noted that the uCfD determination was that the Gay Wikipedians status category (like "signs of the zodiac") does not contribute value to the encyclopedia, and may harm it by introducing factionalism. Wikipedia's change over the past five years is WP:DRVPURPOSE significant new information that has come to light since the 4 October 2007 deletion at UCFD. If Category:Gay Wikipedians is again listed at XfD, the question that should be answered in this modern Wikipedia era is 1. does Category:Gay Wikipedians contribute value to the encyclopedia and 2. does Category:Gay Wikipedians introduce factionalism into this modern Wikipedia era. DRV isn't the place to answer these questions. Since we don't have answers, overturn/allow recreation. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn and allow relist. As others have said, it's been quite a while, there's clear evidence that it may be possible (though not certain0 that consensus has changed, and thus now it's time to reconsider whether or not, in the current social state of Wikipedia, such a category is appropriate. I happen to think it is, but such discussions could wait for an RfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Weak Overturn Though my inkling is to say "oppose", I frequently remind myself that mine is not the only opinion, times change, and knee-jerk is a problem. Those persons wishing to participate in a categorization of "Gay Wiki..." should be allowed to do so if the category is logical to include. Those wishing omission by denial can always BLP/object their way off the list. People feel a need to "socially identify." We may not all feel a linkage for certain categories, but people do devote lifetimes and -styles to participation(s) in commonalities. Having this listed would provide a central point for like-minded and like-behaved persons to seek mutual ideology, informational exposition, and support. Яεñ99 (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Doesn't help build the encyclopedia. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Female Wikipedians – Relist at CfD. – T. Canens (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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.[4] 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. [5] 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[6], there are academic studies targeting women (e.g. [7]), and lots of blogging[8]. 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.[9]), or Category:Female Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians interested in medicine, or Category:Female Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians by degree(i.e. [10]). 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.[11] 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) NOTE: - The only category up for review in this deletion review is the deletion of Category:Female Wikipedians. User:After Midnight deleted Category:Female Wikipedians on 21 June 2007 based on the 15 June 2007 "Categories for discussion/Category:Wikipedians by gender."[12] The only discussion being reviewed at this DRV is Categories for discussion/Category:Wikipedians by gender. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:58, 31 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) As I've said time and time again, how does one go about collaborating with members of a category? Picking one at random, leaving a message on their talk page, and waiting for them to respond? How long until you move to the next person if you don't get a response, or a "not interested" response? I'll wager you'll waste a lot of time trying to get someone to collaborate with you using this method. No, I don't think it works for anyone. People keep saying it does, with nothing to back them up. But let's assume for a minute that category-based collaboration works great. Collaboration on what, exactly? When you self identify as "female", it gives me zero guidance as to what you want to collaborate on. Can I bother you on Feminism? Reproductive rights? High-heeled shoes? Female CEOs? Or do you draw the line at, literally, Female? I've asked these questions before, and nobody has ever given me an answer that would make me change my mind on wikipedian categories. --Kbdank71 18:41, 29 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 those are great events, but you haven't explained how they have anything to do with this category. Are you planning on spamming everyone in it to see if they want to attend? Can they at least opt-out of the messages? Because "self-identify" doesn't mean the same as "spam me about women's events". It means nothing more than "I'm female". It does nothing for collaboration, it does nothing for notification, it does nothing to help edit the encyclopedia. If you want social media, join facebook. --Kbdank71 18:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC) How does Category:Female Wikipedians differ from Category:Christian Wikipedians? Their self-identification doesnt imply they want to be spammed. The point of self-identification categories is to inform others that this is a trait/skill/experience they have. They are making themselves available, even if they are not particularly interested in declaring it as one of their interests. e.g. a Category:Wikipedian lawyer may only declare an interest in history, because they use Wikipedia as a way to "get away from work", however they may still be very happy to answer the occasional question if it relates directly to them. Good use of self-identification categories depends on selecting contributors carefully, and accepting that they may not be interested. Heck, they may even be lying about their identity. But despite the warts of this system, it is useful if used well. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC) How do they differ? They don't. Never said they do. Don't assume that just because Christian Wikipedians is a blue link and not up for discussion here that it means I'm for that while against Female Wikipedians. I'm against both. Their self-identification doesnt imply they want to be spammed. Then why did you bring up the women-only wiki-events twice? You still haven't explained what one has to do with the other. Do you actually have a reason for using the events as a reason not to keep the female wikipedians category deleted? If not, would you mind striking it from your opening statement? to inform others that this is a trait/skill/experience they have. Yes, this is my point, exactly, and it was determined that this is not a reason to have user categories. They are making themselves available Again, as I replied to DGG above, how exactly? Can I ask you a question on bra-sizes because you self-identified as a female? Do I pick a name at random from the category to ask a question about women's volleyball? How long to move on to the next random name if I don't get a response (or an "I don't know"). Can I cut down on my research time by asking 100 (or 1000) females the same question at the same time? (and can tell the good folks at AN/I that you said this was ok when I get questioned why I'm bothering our female editors?). Using self-identification categories for collaboration or even questioning purposes is a terribly bad idea. This is why we have wikiprojects. A specific place to go to ask for help that is frequented by people who have knowledge about the subject and want to help. Using self-identification categories for self-identification purposes is also a bad idea. It amounts to nothing more than social media, and that is not what wikipedia is for. You can get the same self-identification by typing "I am a female" on your user page and clicking save. --Kbdank71 18:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC) I have explained how I use WP:Category intersection to narrow down the results so that I am contacting people who are highly likely to appreciate the 'spam'. The events a) show the commitment of Wikimedia organisations and the Wikimedia community to the objective of understanding and reducing the gender gap, and b) the need for Wikimedia organisations and Wikipedians to support our self-disclosed female Wikipedians. If I misuse user-identification categories, I expect to be lambasted at ANI too. I have explained how these user-identification categories can be used for good and the importance of these good uses, and I am hoping that the community agrees that there are sufficient good uses to outweigh the misuses that are possible. If *you* misuse user-identification categories, that is your problem and you can expect to be taken to ANI. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:49, 1 September 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 deckertalk 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 12:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn, agree with BXM, directly above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn - I feel this is just as important as other self-identification categories and women are a minority here, being able to find and collaborate with other women (who have their own set of tastes, interests and expertise) would help to foster a better environment that is more welcoming and friendlier to new potential (female) editors. Though no one should take this to mean that I endorse hair-splitting the categories as was mentioned above with an example like "Girls interested in Foo" I do endorse this particular category. Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn Short of a category name being patently offensive and intended to disrupt, it should be allowed.   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  17:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn User:After Midnight's 21 June 2007 deletion of Category:Female Wikipedians.[13] - The outcome of Categories for discussion/Category:Wikipedians by gender only deleted Category:Wikipedians by gender. It did not create a guideline or policy to justify deleting Category:Female Wikipedians or any category other than Category:Wikipedians by gender. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC) I disagree with this, the Wikipedians by gender nom clearly mentions "its three subcategories" in the nomination whether they were specifically spelled our or not. To me it's rather obvious all of those were subject to the discussion and not merely the parent category. VegaDark (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Just like everything John Vandenberg mentioned in the above DRV nom? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Overturn - per nom and Cirt. NYSMtalk page 10:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn and allow relist. As others have said, it's been quite a while, there's clear evidence that it may be possible (though not certain0 that consensus has changed, and thus now it's time to reconsider whether or not, in the current social state of Wikipedia, such a category is appropriate. I happen to think it is, but such discussions could wait for an RfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.