Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 26
26 October 2014[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Category pages, such as this one, using {{Maintenance category}} and {{Wikipedia category}} are exempt from WP:CSD#C1 and require a CfD discussion; which this one just had as Category:Wikipedians by skin (and subcategories) that had an end result of keep. The administrator, VegaDark, ignored this exception, deleted the category, posted the main category and the rest of the sub-categories for deletion at CfD, and refuses to restore this maintenance category that should not have been deleted even if empty without a CfD resulting in delete. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Non admin closure when there was not clear consensus i.e. I was arguing for deletion and another editor was arguing to 'keep'. Discussion should either have been extended, or an admin should have closed the debate (I would have thought 'no consensus' at best). Sionk (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Sionk (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I believe the closing administrator erred when he closed this as "No consensus" as opposed to Delete. I like to give leeway to XfD closures even when I disagree with them, but this is an example of one that sets off too many of my red flags for a bad closure. On a pure headcount, it's five in favor of deletion and three to keep, which could have been a reasonable "No consensus" close had the rationales been equally compelling. That isn't the case here. One of the keep !votes was literally "it is just for fun. And it is fun." while another !vote was "Imagine my surprise when I clicked on this category and found MYSELF! That made my day." These are not reasons to be keeping a category on Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is that this category unquestionably and unarguably violates WP:USERCAT, the only guideline we have when it comes to user categories. We have consistently followed this guideline and as a result have made user categories directly correspond to helping build the encyclopedia. It is not uncommon for user category discussions to get participants with rationales like these, generally because people like to treat user categories as they would userboxes, where almost anything goes. Categories do not have a "userspace" like there is to address unencyclopedic stuff in the template space, however, so categories like these have traditionally been deleted (see here for quite a few examples). When I discussed this on the closing administrator's userpage, he stated that he discounted the above !votes as well as one of the delete !votes (that being because the !vote was copy/pasted across several other nominations). While discounting the above mentioned !votes was certainly proper, I think discounting a !vote because it was copy/pasted between a few other, similar CfDs was not proper unless that rationale was flawed. The rationale that was copy pasted was "doesn't help building an encyclopedia - which is why we're here. I think." This rationale goes hand in hand with WP:USERCAT and in my view should not have been discounted, making the totals based on headcount alone 5 in favor of deletion to 1 in favor of keeping. Now, let me address the final keep !vote, which the closing administrator apparently solely relied on towards keeping as the basis for the no consensus close. diff Please judge for yourself, but my reading of this boils down to "I've used it before, it does no harm, it doesn't bother anyone, and adds to enjoyment for editors to participate in Wikipedia." WP:NOHARM should cover most of that, while the only real argument I see here is that this category indirectly benefits the encyclopedia by making editors feel better when they are appreciated. There are numerous ways to do this on the encyclopedia without violating a guideline, such as barnstars, the "thank" feature on edits, and other ways. Someone could even put a "This user is awesome" userbox on their page and it would be perfectly fine. User categories, however, have a higher standard that requires the category to be linked to collaboration on the encyclopedia. There's absolutely nothing that these users share in common or likelihood of shared interest in a particular subject, making it completely unencyclopedic. Additionally, if "Let's keep this because editors will enjoy the recognition, which indirectly benefits the encyclopedia" argument prevails, that sets a very dangerous precedent for future deletion discussions. Do we want the category system go to back to the old ways of "anything goes"? Should we keep a mainspace article on an editor who was otherwise non notable because having a mainspace article improved their morale and enjoyment of the project? Of course not. Based on numbers and particularly based on strength of arguments I think this falls outside the usual leeway an administrator should have during a closure, and that this should be Overturned to deletion VegaDark (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |