Robert M. Edsel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Mr. Edsel is the author of a best-selling book Rescuing Da Vinci, and co-producer of a documentary film called The Rape of Europa that just is now on the short-list of 15 films for Academy Award nomination. He has also just received The National Humanities Medal from the NEH, during a White House ceremony for the work his foundation, The Monuments Men Foundation for the Preservation of Art is doing to preserve art. I believe this is a piece of history that should have a chance to be updated on the Wikipedia page and restored. Please take a look at his websites and their content. [1], [2]or [3]. --Armcandy101 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Armcandy101 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC) --Armcandy101 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article at Rescuing Da Vinci. The sources Armcandy101 references are not reliable sources. For now, I wouldn't object to a redirect to the book's article, but there needs to be reliable sources to write a bio from. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armcandy has provided me with two further sources which look, to me, as if they would establish notability: [4] [5]. Based on those sources, I'll say Endorse allowing the article to be recreated. Since I can't see what was there before, I'm reluctant to overturn the deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The websites that are referenced above are run by his organization and I understand they may not be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. The White House website [6] references the National Humanities Medal he received and also features an image of Robert Edsel with the President and other Monuments Men and the National Archives website [7] references the recent donation of the "Hitler Albums" that Robert Edsel donated to our nation in a press conference covered by over 100 media outlets. --Armcandy101 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it was deleted merely as an expired prod and I think therefore can be restored on request. DGG (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• List. New information is being presented, so it should be restored and go to a deletion discussion. If the article does now pass notability guidelines, it should be kept easily. An AfD would be prudent, just to be sure. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Calcium Claims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe this page falls under the category of Articles whose subject is a POV. Both points of view were represented on the page. It was clearly about points of view. Content was not being represented as fact. Thanks. Magnonimous (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting admin here. This was a pretty obvious content fork from Coral calcium and was based off content that had been the subject of an edit war at that article and was now being displayed in a new article with a disclaimer. This is why it was deleted. The content should be discussed at Coral calcium. I'd certainly be open to an AFD of this if neutral uninvolved editors feel it necessary as this deletion was done boldly.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn There is no provision for speedy deleting as an "obvious fork". You are probably right about the fork, but that's another matter. DGG (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (sorry, speedy overturn=snow, in this context)[reply]
• Restore and list, as above. The matter of whether or not the article should have been deleted can be decided in a deletion discussion. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Requesting undeletion Magnonimous (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and AfD per DGG and Lifebaka; sympathize with Isotope23's motives, but it really does need to go to AfD. Disclaimer: As I am obviously fighting a POV fork tooth and nail below at #Card shark, I have a strong opinion on the matter and agree that the AfD should proceed, swiftly and firmly. That said, I still have to agree with DGG et al., that CSD does not come to bear on the issues raised by Coral Calcium Claims. However, I'm not sure what DGG means by "speedy" overturn, since we do not have a WP:CSoverturn. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted patent content fork. Perhaps it should have gone to afd, but no point in us restoring crap to process wonk.--Doc^g 09:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Doc. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, no real point in restoring this, it's a blatant POV fork that wouldn't survive at AFD. Okay, fine, overturn and list per below. --Coredesat 11:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not a fan of process simply for the sake of it when the end result will be the same, but given that 3 editors in good standing have requested the deletion be overturned and sent to AFD, I'd be comfortable with this being closed now and relisted at AFD per the same common sense rationale I used to initially delete it.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm afraid I have to agree with the others above. Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AFD where I think it will fail. While I recognize the problems with process for process' sake, I am more concerned with the negative precedent that comes from stretching the speedy-deletion criteria beyond their intended and deliberately narrow scope. Five days and a few extra edits are worth the price. Rossami (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm ready for AFD, Let's Do This Thing. Magnonimous (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannical Response Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hello, my newly posted article was marked for deletion literally less then 2 minutes then I had posted it. I then marked it for hangon and asked for further clarification as to why they felt it required deletion, being that I feel it does meet the A7 requirement as stated within the opening paragraphs and most obviously is how could they have possibly read it so quickly to come to such a conclusion, the article was then deleted about 5 minutes later without any reply at all. This is unprofessional and the wikiMOD seems poorly trained and standoffish. I request my article be reinstated and notified as to what the "discrepancies" are so that I may take remedy to fix them. Thank you. Majestic2007 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you contact the deleting admin and ask him/her why your page was deleted. As far as I can tell, since the ((hangon)) tag was ignored, it was probably a clear WP:CSD#A7. To that end, endorse. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse as the person who nominated it. total of 4 Google hits. All self published. page was basically a long essay like this one http://defendindependence.org/TRT/TRT.HTML only longer. Ridernyc (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A7 as a non notable website or company was probably valid, but it certainly was a valid deletion as G11, advertisement. DGG (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As deleting admin, I read enough of it to see it was blatantly an advertisement for something that did not assert the notability. I used the quick A7 tag, but also believed it qualified under G11. I stand by my deletion in this instance. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Clearly a valid WP:CSD#G11 deletion, though I wasn't willing to put enough effort into it to see if it is also a valid A7. Of course, the deleting admin should have cited the actual reason for deleting it, but an error in citation is not reason to overturn. GRBerry 03:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What 4 Google hits? You also need to include the search team Tyranny Response Team, so there are over 7,530 hit in Google alone.
  A. The original reason for the deletion has yet to be resolved.
  B. The "WikiMODS" inappropriate actions and behavior have yet to be addressed.
  C. I still do not have a clear idea as to what needs to be corrected, it seems as if all of these WikiMODS chiming in are actually just throwing straw men out there to explain and cover for another's irresponsible and wrongful actions.
  D. From what I read regarding each of your dispositions you are creating your own assumptions, look at what you wrote, how could you possibly know such information? That is no basis in fact in what you are writing, you have taken very little information and warped and contorted it into something that it is actually not.
  E. The truth and "crux of" have not been mustered and are lacking.
  I ask each of you where is your accountably and professionalism at? To me it sounds as if you are basing your opinions upon preconceived notions and extremely weak assertions. So now your reason is because there is page similar to the one I created on Wikipedia, well guess guys that is the case for the millions of other Wikipedia entries, so if that is your basis then by all means all Wikipages should be marked for deletion, because they all (for the most part) also fall into such a category. Finally, you can pick and choose whatever you want to classify it as an "advertisement" as well, in essence that is what all Wikipedia pages dealing with a business actually is, although I do ask you to ponder how my page can be an advertisement being that it is not selling or endorsing any products whatsoever.
  You are all confusing fact with fiction to suit what you have been told to do by your former trainers (or handlers) that is very weak, gentlemen, very weak.
  I do know that others have attempted to start of a Tyranny Response Team page and they have all been quickly deleted, though I put a lot of time and effort into making a proper Wikipedia page and it was deleted by the WikiMODS, whom have admittedly done so without putting forth much effort or thought into it. I have heard that Wikipedia is a CIA/NSA pet project (founded by with benefits), which would serve to preclude the acceptance of such a page as one that demands honesty from its own government.
  Congratulations gentleman on your willingness to bow down to those whom wish you harm and bondage. You are much more simplistic and forgiving then I. Though I honestly wonder if my words are being wasted speaking to any of you, because honestly after seeing that photo of the responsible WikiMOD, I have to say that was not a very professional image to pass onto the public of oneself, if you catch my drift. Though it does help to explain alot as to why there are so many existing and unresolved issues here at Wikipedia... which is honestly way over rated anyway.
  Majestic2007 (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Boo freakin' hoo. JuJube (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the point of making this reply, this is completely inappropriate, see below for mention of "soapboxing". kthxbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majestic2007 (talk • contribs)
• Endorse deletion, creator needs to read Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Good luck with your activism but this isn't the place for it. --Stormie (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soapbox, has nothing to do with the page that was deleted, that is unrelated and after the fact, this comment has not basis to the related argument and lends to obfuscation of the facts at hand, (hence and unneeded dueling distraction). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majestic2007 (talk • contribs)
• Endorse deletion. The page indicates nothing resembling notability; I see nothing in the way of reliable sources that discuss the topic, and thus it can't really be verified as notable. It did also appear rather promotional. The deletion appears to have been quite valid. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over 7,000 pages that beg to differ, the Tyrannical (or Tyranny) Response Team - TRT, is a very real movement of proactive individuals coming together across the nation for a redress of grievances from their government. I am merely attempting to bring recognition and awareness to those countless Americans whom have put for such positive efforts to ensuring Americas foundation is secured.
    This page is not about being on a soapbox or about engaging in activism on their face, this page is not here to argue one way or the other about such issues as 9/11, the Bush family, the Iraq war, etc.; it is solely about the principles of the Tyrannical Response Team. Once again the page does not directly discuss such specific views, it merely glosses over the concerns of the TRT (similarly compare to the pages about the Freemasons, KKK, political parties, religion groups, etc.). I am not here to debate such things with anybody here, as I realize that most here would not understand such concepts anyway. Majestic2007 (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Once again I have to ask as I have yet to receive a single valid response or reply:
  A. The original reason for the deletion has yet to be resolved.
  B. The "WikiMODS" inappropriate actions and behavior have yet to be addressed.
  C. I still do not have a clear idea as to what needs to be corrected, it seems as if all of these WikiMODS chiming in are actually just throwing straw men out there to explain and cover for another's irresponsible and wrongful actions.
  D. From what I read regarding each of your dispositions you are creating your own assumptions, look at what you wrote, how could you possibly know such information? That is no basis in fact in what you are writing, you have taken very little information and warped and contorted it into something that it is actually not.
  E. The truth and "crux of" have not been mustered and are lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majestic2007 (talk • contribs) This comment was moved by Rossami to restore the chronology of the discussion. If doing so accidentally changed the context or meaning of the comment, please fix it.
• Endorse deletion, valid A7 and G11, Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. If the article creator is only going to be hostile, this DRV should be speedily closed. --Coredesat 08:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The creator did not make clear how and why the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia, and the article used Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote a real-world agenda. A valid deletion. I agree with Coredesat that if the creator is going to turn this DRV into a diatribe on our enslavement to the powers that be, this DRV should be closed. Please do remain on topic: what makes this subject notable enough for Wikipedia? And in what way was the article neutral enough for Wikipedia? Aecis^Brievenbus 13:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy-deletion. No independent assertion of notability was made in the deleted article nor has any evidence been provided here. To the author's comments above about Google searches as evidence, "Tyranny Response Team" returns 297 non-duplicative hits and the vast majority of those are either self-published materials or blog entries. "Tyrannical Response Team" currently returns only 5 hits, two of which trace to Wikipedia and none which demonstrate notability. I found no evidence of independent coverage by any Wikipedia:reliable source. Rossami (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. They have a website... and a logo... and some documents. What they don't have is any indication of notability per our guidelines; or reliable 3rd party sources. There is no conspiracy here; until it is demonstrated that this organization is somehow notable, there is no reason for an article .--Isotope23 ^talk 18:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. There is nothing in the article that asserts notability or contains it; we have herein generated more attention to this topic than it has received in national/international media, AFAIK. I endorse the original decision to delete this article; I'd have done so too, for the same reasons. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Closer somehow got a delete out of the discussion. Friday (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (admission) I created this category, simply as a light-hearted attempt to encourage admins to be open to constructive criticism, even if they didn't want to do the "recall" think. I think that has some merit. I was surprised when it was CfD'd without anyone raising any issues with me first. I didn't participate in the CfD as there was obviously not going to be a consensus to delete - and because I wasn't that bothered by the thing. The closure mystifies me, it seems the closer has confused closing with suggesting a new argument (he did the same with the CfD of the "recall" category too - that's been overturned here already). He's been asked to reconsider this, but refused. I'm not really concerned what we do with this category, but perhaps some folk who he'll listen to might offer a little coaching in closing discussions.--Doc^g 16:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, anyone who thinks this has merit might like to add themselves to it. Hey a deletion might be the best means to get it to catch on!! :)--Doc^g 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, it's the "light-hearted attempt to encourage admins to be open to constructive criticism" part which I consider valuable to the project. Also note that the category still exists because a few people are using it- so, did deleting the page accomplish anything? I don't even begin to understand why it was nominated for deletion in the first place, much less how anyone could have decided to delete. Friday (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer made the correct decision based upon the strength of arguments. "harmless and funny" is not a reason to keep. --Kbdank71 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Restore The closer seems to rather like to implement the result he thinks is "right" rather than the result the community has shown a consensus for. This occasionally works if the closer makes a good call, but so far I did not see the closer make any such "good calls" against "apparent consensus". I'd strongly suggest him to rethink his actions - having the bit is not a privilege; it is a responsiblity. CharonX/talk 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware that you needed the bit to close discussions. Oh wait, you don't. "Consensus" doesn't mean "vote counting", but all too frequently too many people get those two mixed up. --Kbdank71 17:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Consensus" means just counting the votes you agree with. --W.marsh 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa, slow down there skipper, no need to get snappy and sarcastic. Sure, you don't need "the bit" to close discussions (though I believe to dimly recall that only discussions with "clear" results (i.e. little or no opposing !votes) should be closed by non-admins) but if you are an admin everything you do is given additional weight (after all, admins are supposed to be the best of the editor crop Wikipedia has to offer, rolemodels how users should behave). And W.marsh said above - consensus aint "vote counting" and neither is it "only counting the votes you agree with" - it is taking the sum of the comments and editors that stand behind it and thus seeing where the consensus is. And saying "The wide majority of you can go screw itself, the small minority shows where the consensus is" is kinda... counterintuitive. CharonX/talk 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • it is taking the sum of the comments and editors that stand behind it and thus seeing where the consensus is Sum of the comments sure sounds like vote counting to me. And if the wide majority comes up with "I like it", and the minority comes up with anything better (aka strength of argument), then counterintuitive or not, that's how it should be closed. --Kbdank71 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a XfD is closed against the (votecounting) consensus the closer should explain his interpretation of the outcome with arguments. The more biased the XfD seems, the more and better he should explain his reasoning. If a wide majority of comments goes contrary to the percieved closure he should definitly explain in detail where the majority erred. Simply saying "that's only WP:ILIKEIT !votes" won't be enough - he should explain (in detail) how and why the arguments of (seemingly) smaller side of the commenters outweight the arguments of the majority. Otherwise it might look like the closer did not act like a neutral mediator, but rather allowed his personal bias to outshadow the consensus of the majority. Which would be bad. CharonX/talk 21:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and userify. The delete arguements were stronger. This is not a category that helps build an encyclopedia. I am all in favor of this sort of humorous content, but I believe that it should either be left in Wikipedia or user namespace. It should be little problem to have the userbox link to a user subpage (or some other page) instead. So, for now, restore a version to user namespace. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I don't want it in my userspace. It is of no use whatsoever to me there, and I don't use userboxes anyway, so I've no idea how they would be a substitute. BTW, it is not intended as humour, light hearted, yes, but it has a serious pupose, if its only purpose was humour, I'd have deleted it myself.--Doc^g 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't suggesting anyone's userspace in particular. On second thought, it would make more sense to place it as a subpage of WP:TROUT anyway. Change to endorse and recreate content at Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout/Admins in favor of or a similar subpage. Same logic as above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, might as well keep deleted then. I can see no use for a subpage.--Doc^g 18:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see much use in a subpage. While signing their names, admins can add witty remarks or make a serious commitment to be more open to constructive criticism. A userbox in userspace can connect them all together. Admins who do not use userboxes can simply link to the subpage, or they can choose not to if the issue isn't important enough for them to signify. –Pomte 14:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't it for the community to decide the best way to group themselves? When did we decide that they couldn't use the category system? Because as yet no-one has found a killer piece of policy. The best guidance we have seems to allow it. Why is that being overlooked? Hiding T 15:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Closer pointed everyone to arguments to avoid and said that he didn't need to explain further. Well, he should have. There were valid arguments on both sides. There was no consensus to delete either by weight of argument or by numbers. It was a bad close and a bad way to close it. If you're going to close a xFD that is not clear you have to do more than just point to an essay. Not too mention talk about how the essay fits into the close. RxS (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete present in the discussion. "Harmless and funny" isn't a reason to keep an article but can have some merit as an argument in discussions of meta-information. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Per the above, "harmless and funny" is not an invalid reason to keep something that isn't in mainspace. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 21:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn closure and undelete. As per Dark Shikari, "harmless and funny" is not an invalid reason to keep something when that something is not in the mainspace. Additionally, there was no consensus in that discussion to delete the category. (Warning, unproved assertions ahead.) My impression of UCFD is that it seriously suffers from self-selection bias: there are a few regulars who have widely differing opinions from those who comment at only one or a few discussions. I do not think, then, that we should point to previous discussions as "precedent" or "consensus", because either those discussions resulted in no consensus or there was self-selection bias. Again, that is my opinion, from my experience at UFCD, but I have no diffs to support my assertions. --Iamunknown 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - actually I'd be content to say that if something is only "harmless and funny", then delete it. Category:Wikipedians open to being tickled by Jimbo's beard, gets my strong delete on the grounds of not being remotely useful - we are an encyclopaedia not a social networking site. However, I don't think this is totally useless. It serves a purpose of light heartedly encouraging admins to hold themselves open to good-natured criticism. I often don't respond to criticism well, and tend to be defensive, but being in this category will remind me to respond jovially to good-natured rebukes (trout or no trout). In any case, keeping it about for a few months and seeing if it helps or hinders isn't harmful.--Doc^g 00:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per above (and trout-slap closer ;-) --Thinboy00 @123, i.e. 01:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible endorse. This nonsense category in no way, shape or form fosters collaboration, and the rather offensive conduct of the creator in reverting the deletion with a rude summary (and then asserting that redeleting it would constitute wheel-warring) is something that should be noted as well. There is a userbox for this (created after the original UCFD nomination) that can be used to convey the sentiment, and it can be listified if it's so terribly important, but "ILIKEIT", "ITSFUNNY" and ""ITSHARMLESS" do not constitute valid votes, and were (appropriately) discounted when the closing editor assessed the discussion. Horologium (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments:

• First of all, I should probably apologise for presuming that most (if not all) of those who commented in the discussion were well-acquainted with WP:AADD, and its various sections, and how they are applied in deletion discussions. I fully admit to making the possibly mistaken presumption. As for its applicability to the discussion closure, in looking over the discussion, I thought it was painfully obvious to see things such as WP:ITSFUNNY, or WP:HARMLESS. And those are just two. There were more. (If requested, I suppose we can recreate a play-by-play, but I really just don't think it's necessary.)
• Second, I find it interesting that the nominator here has no regard for the discussion. When I attempted to respond to this comment on my talk page, I received this surprising statement as a response. Later, after making this DRV nomination, the user said this, and when I asked them to clarify what they meant by "the right answer"[8], I received this response. When I add them together, it appears to me that this is a case of "leave my category alone". A comment that I think all closers encounter often enough in XfD discussions. They opposed the nomination, and then the later closure of the discussion. It's kind of hard to discuss the consensus of a discussion when the person you're discussing with has no regard for the discussion itself.
• Third, I think it's great that Doc glasgow was looking for something to positively remind him about civility in discussions. I sincerely hope that , regardless of the results of this discussion, he finds the positive reminders he seeks.
• Fourth, that said, yes, I think it was an abuse of his admin tools to arbitrarily recreate a category which was deleted through an XfD discussion, without coming first to DRV (or at least having some discussion "somewhere"), especially since, as creator, and by his own admission, he was in no way neutral to the category. However, I think it was a simple mistake, and besides a gentle reminder, no action should be taken concerning it. Yes, don't allow policy to stop you from doing what is "right" (per WP:SOP and more famously WP:IAR), but at the same time, I feel that ignoring policy and/or process because "IWANTIT to be right" is abusing the elasticity of the clause. It seems fairly obvious to me that's what Doc glasgow was doing. (And how the current nominator of this DRV feels.)
• Fifth, I've been accused of (essentially) pushing my own POV in closing the discussion. I'm going to address this offensive lack of good faith directly. My job as closer is to determine consensus, both the consensus of the current discussion, and that it follow current community consensus. While, as closers, we're allowed to add our own perspective on the topic in the closure (I see it happen quite frequently), in this case, I actually didn't do so (more about this below).
• My "personal preference", if I had "voted" in the discussion would probably have been the following:

• Keep, but Rename to "Wikipedians who welcome being whacked by a trout, when appropriate", or something similar, or at least Rename "...slapping" to "...whacking", as that seems to be the more prevalent term.

• See, I happen to be a fan of WP:TROUT, and even helped in creating a template or so concerning it. (Note that those edits and the related discussion predate even the UCFD discussion.) But as closer, this isn't about my personal preference, which would have been to hope to "help" consensus change in this case (since such categories have been repeatedly deleted in the past).
• So as closer, I was to determine the consensus of the discussion, while keeping in mind any broader concerns. I did so. Take a moment to look over Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index, and in particular the discussions regarding #Wikipedians by preference, and #Miscellaneous. There are numerous examples of past precedent, which was referred to by several of those in the discussion. As noted by others, consensus isn't about a head count (See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which says precicely that).
• Sixth, and then there is the question of whether this should be a category. Categories are groupings which are listed by name at the "bottom-of-the-page" of pages, and which also have an introduction. There has been repeated consensus at WP:CFD that categories should not be used for "bottom-of-the-page" notices. If that's what one wants, they should type the text into the page itself rather than abuse categories in that way. And in looking over the discussion, I see several noting this very thing, that a category is not appropriate for this. Humourous, "feel-good", community-building pages are typically "kept" in Wikipedia-space (or sometimes userfied to userspace). I noted this in the closure, when I suggested that there was no prejudice against someone creating such a page.
• And finally, thank you for for informing me of this discussion, and allowing me to comment in it. I'll note that I could probably continue on-and-on, showing and explaining more and more about policy, process, and precedent, but I think that what I even have now is quite lengthy, and I despair of it actually being read. But WP:AGF prevails, so we'll see : ) - jc37 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure - per my comments above. - jc37 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer determined consensus within that discussion with his experienced knowledge of long-standing consensus on the purpose of user categories; a less experienced admin would certainly have misinterpreted. There's a fundamental difference between humourous projectspace pages and humourous categories. Editors are simply not seeing the big picture here, and this doesn't validate their apparent 'consensus' by vote count. In response to the arguments above that "useless and harmless" isn't a valid reason only in mainspace, please familiarize yourselves with UCFD, userbox migration, and userification of pages unfit elsewhere. As for Doc's intended psychological purpose for the category (I got it wrong in the discussion, and I apologize), it's unrealistic and reasonably not why admins put themselves in it. –Pomte 08:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn with no criticism of closing admin implied: This was a tough judgement call and could have gone either way. I lean toward overturn solely on the basis that rationales for the category were applied, that are not to be found in WP:AADD, and that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is precisely as worthless an argument as WP:ILIKEIT. The editorial collaboration effect of this is category is presently indeterminate; no legitimate case has actually been presented that such a utility genuinely does not exist, and the burden of proof is on the deleter, not the defender. At CfD we routinely keep categories if a strong basis for the deletion cannot be demonstrated, and some other criterion for deletion is not applicable. All that said, I personally question the editorial utility of the category myself; suggest merger with the one about admins open to recall, since they seem to address the same issue, i.e. self-declaration of admin fallibility and willingness to be criticized. In itself, not a bad meme at all, I would add. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Just a couple of points to clarify here.

• First I've been pointed twice to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index. The only other cat I can find listed there which catetegorises admins is Category:Rouge admins, and that was closed as a keep. So I'm not sure which section we should be looking in there to determine consensus or how we use that page to determine consensus. It only lists categories that have appeared on UCFD, not the many which, as Jc has pointed out, aren't listed because there is an overwhelming consensus to keep. So I'm not sure how we use that page to determine consensus or precedent, because it seems to be biasing in favour of deletion by the simple fact of not listing all categories for which there is a strong consensus to keep. Since we also have a notion that consensus can change, I'd be worried that we're setting too much faith in determining precedence in prior discussions listed on a page with such a heavy bias. Did the closer compare with similar categories that have not been nominated? Hiding T 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to restrict your analysis to categories that contain admins only, they are:

Category:Wikipedia administrators

Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall

Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks

Category:Wikipedia administrators who use VoA script

Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles

These are all of a different nature than the category in question, so no meaningful comparison can be drawn. The relevant section in the index is Nonsense/joke/humor categories. I think you misinterpreted Jc37 in that keep decisions are not purposely or largely omitted from the index, as the purpose of the index is to determine actual trends and consensus on each topic. Black Falcon has done a comprehensive job of including all controversial or precedent-affecting decisions since June. –Pomte 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think I misinterpreted Jc, you may have misinterpreted me. I can't see how you determine trends when you miss a key part of the data set such as the categories which have never been nominated. Part of using statistics is knowing what they are telling you. You can't use these statistics to know anything other than how the deletion debates have been closed. They will tell you the trends at UCFD, but they have to be filtered for the bias that they only determine trends for things which have been nominated. Someone armed with the stats could game the system, for example, by nominating something which does not mirro the other things listed but for which the trend is for deletion. I think we both agree that there are no meaningful comparisons on that page. If you are looking in the joke section you have already made a judgement on the category and on some comments within the debate and fallen foul of our guidance on being impartial. Hiding T 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Second I've been pointed to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. The most fundamental piece of advice on that page is When in doubt, don't delete. I think the closer has already demonstrated he had doubt in mind, stating that his preference was to keep. We are also guided to respect the feelings and judgement of Wikipedia participants. Wikipedia isn't a courtroom, it isn't a bureaucracy, it isn't a democracy, it's an encyclopedia built by a community. I can't say that strongly enough. Our deletion guidance tells us we have to respect the feelings of that community. If that community is split on an issue, we have to respect that split and note that there is such a split. Precedence alone tells us that, from all the paedophile user box Jimmy's beard deletionist inclusionist kiddie porn not/censored not/spoilt no/plot wars. We need to avoid deciding divisive issues before they're ready to be decided. Also, reading Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators I can fiond no mention of the word precedence. I can find mention of policy, but unless Wikipedia has changed the last couple of months, I don't recall that a few things which have happened before has been elevated to policy. Sometimes that stuff gets written up as guidance, but again, that's not policy. It's policy we bow to, because we'd never have a biased article or original research. We'll often include non-notable stuff or stuff that doesn't cite reliable sources and the like. It's policy which trumps a deletion debate, not a couple of deletion debates a few months ago that are somewhat related in the mind of the closer. Hiding T 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting it would have been divisive as well, in setting a precedent that goes against past and present UCFDiscussions. So this is more of a damned if you do, damned if you don't decision. –Pomte 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A point I made myself. The only ways out of no man's land are to wave the white flag, walk backwards slowly, hide under cover and pray to whatever gods you hold dear. Hiding T 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Third What's a category for. The closer makes a big point about how there is a question as to whether this should be a category. Last time I looked, categories were for grouping things. This category grouped admins. It's suggested that categories shouldn't be bottom of the page notices, which is fine. To a point. When the category groups along the lines of such established cats as found in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy, none of which appear to have been detailed on the prior precedent page but all of which seem to have an overwhelming consensus to keep by dint of the number of people in them and the fact they've never been nominated, it strikes me that there is a consensus to group admins by admin philosophy. We seem to have a precedent in Rouge admins and admins open to recall and egour admins and so on, so how can it be that categories are not about bottom of the page notices when we have such categories? As to the stament that "Humourous, "feel-good", community-building pages are typically "kept" in Wikipedia-space", I'd note the word "typically" there. We have a long tradition of doing the same in category space going back to the late 2005. Hell, the whole userbox wars were over whether it was an appropriate use of category space to do that, and it never got settled one way or the other who was right. The begrudging consensus that formed was that it's okay when we all agree, and it's not when we don't, and in the middle is where the fighting happens. I guess that's why we're here. We're in the middle. Didn't we learn from World War I not to venture into no man's land? Hiding T 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the userbox wars were settled well enough since no one seems outraged at their userboxes being moved from templatespace to userspace. Wikipedia editing philosophies are clear in scope; this category isn't. A rename would make it serious and clearly state its inclusion criteria. –Pomte 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing is settled on Wikipedia. That's the whole point of consensus can change. It's hard to discuss the rename of a deleted category. Had it been a no consensus close with an eye on renaming, that would be an acceptable outcome and we most likely wouldn't be here. Hiding T 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fourth Nominated the same day it was created? What gives? Did anyone else notice that, or did no-one else think it was important. Hiding T 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Created while the similarly-named recall category was under discussion, it was bound to attract attention. –Pomte 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Which doesn't really undermine my point. Hiding T 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fifth How do you weigh that deletion debate? Every argument breaks down into I like it and I don't like it. Why the hell are we wasting time with such triviality? You can't impartially weigh that debate as anything but no consensus, in my opinion. The deletionists argued it was bad form, the inclusionists argued it was harmless and numbers were evenly matched. If it's got to a point where we can decide in favour of bad form over harmless, there's something rotten in the state of Denmark. Hiding T 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Useful does not break down to I like it. Lack of collaborative potential does not break down to I don't like it. –Pomte 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course it does. How else do we decide what we like and what we don't like? Oh, I think this is useful, it meets my criteria of what I like, I'll keep it. Oh, I can't see any potential here, it meets my criteria of what I don't like, let's get rid of it. How else do people make decisions? What else is a decision or opinion but a subjective feeling based on subjective criteria. You can pretend that I DON'T LIKE IT and I LIKE IT are something other than they are, but not in my company. Wikipedia really has descended into farce if we ignore the fact that people's opinions are subjective and based upon what they feel and like. Just because they interpret a guidance or agree with a policy, it doesn't change the fact that they are using that to bolster their opinion, which is based on what they like and feel. Hiding T 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sixth A trout slap to Doc g who should know better by now, not so much in restoring the category but in the tone and colour of subsequent comments. We should not have our hands tied by process, but we should damn well respect each other or be so convincing in our pretence of it that it makes no difference. Hiding T 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll endorse based on the fact that we allow closing admin's discretion, process was followed and I trust this closer. I do however think the category should be recreated anyway, and maybe in five years time we revisit the whole thing once we have that encyclopedia written. I wish the closer of this debate the best of times and seasons greetings. For the record, since think the closing admin wanted the debate brought here, I'll reluctantly state that the close should be overturned. That's based on my gut feeling of where consensus within the community lies, rather than process issues. If the debate swings the other way, swing me with it. And someone build a more comfortable fence. Hiding T 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Seventh Damn, it's annoying when you leave your coat behind. I've just reviewed Wikipedia:Userboxes and found the following piece of advice, Consider how useful the category would be to other editors. I'd say that the I LIKE IT comments were basing their opinion on this piece of guidance as much as the I DON'T LIKE IT brigade were basing theirs on any other guidance. As to whether this category is useful to other editors, who can say, but if that's the guidance on determining whether to create, I think the deletion debate examined that issue and the consensus was that no-one knew. I know I don't. But I err on the side of good faith that it could be and doubt that it needs to be deleted, as stated above. I think the quoted guidance above shows that category space can be used for community building. If it can't be, why the hell are we guiding users that it can be. Hiding T 12:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Only a couple of keeps referred to its potential usefulness. –Pomte 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole debate concerns whether it is a useless category. Almost every comment addresses that. I suggest you re-read the debate. Friday rejects the nominators belief that it is useless. Nick discusses the POINT issue. Kubigula discusses the utility, anetode sees value in the grouping, as does lucabfr, Jehochman calls it harmless, Bduke seems to be bowing to consensus, Risker outlines the utility, as does Raymond Arritt, dorftrottel points out it may be less divisive than other categories, CharonX we can perhaps disregard but seems to indicate a bow to consensus, RMHED sees value, WODUP echoes Kubigula, as does DarkFalls, Anonymous Dissident sees use, as does Abd and Captain Panda. Maybe you were looking for something other than people saying Keep because they do not think it is useless, the reason for nomination? This isn't article space, arguments are typicaly less robust, of lesser import and less procedurally bothered because this isn't outward facing. This is an inward facing category, and the debates on inwards facing stuff tend to reflect that. They tend to be more emotive and less procedural, because ultimately it has little impact on the encyclopedia. The best point made in the deletion debate is by Bduke who sums up the whole debate and identifies consensus in his comment (my emphasis added) "This does not seem to help the encyclopedia so perhaps it should go. However, I really do think it could have been left for a few weeks over the holiday period before being dragged here for deletion. We get less and less laughs these days here." The consensus was that no-one agreed, either on the deletion or the utility of the category. For that alone it should have been closed no consensus. Hiding T 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Closer tried an innovative compromise solution, but it was not supported by consensus. WP:OCAT is a guideline for a reason: the community, if well-informed and duly considered, may override it for any good reason, including the goodwill generated by a humorous category. The guideline cannot be enforced against this much community affection. Xoloz (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what I see here is an attempt to separate "admin" user cats from "editor" user cats, in an attempt to justify the retention of this category. If (as is continually reiterated) adminship is not a big deal, why is it acceptable to retain joke cats for admin-only groupings, but delete user cats for all editors? Do those who support this joke cat endorse a recreation of Category:Well endowed Wikipedians (yes, it went through CFD in 2006) or perhaps Category:Wikipedians who believe TINC (which was deleted earlier this year)? Keeping only the admin-related humor cats is most certainly not "HARMLESS"; it's divisive, creating a de facto apartheid in which only admins are allowed to have humor categories. If you endorse the recreation of the well-endowed cat, you will open the door to the creation of a flood of humor user cats, which will overwhelm the user categorization system and make it totally useless for navigation. This is a self-expression category, not a useful grouping. Horologium (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply This "admin category" makes no reference to real-world ideological differences. It is a humorous category related to the maintenance of the site. User categories of this sort ("This user is an eventualist", for example) are similarly kept. Wikipedia is more ready to support humor about Wikipedia as constructive in building a community: if, however, WP allowed every user to make joke categories related to his or her perceptions of, say, sexual humor, WP would be deluged with bad jokes that had nothing to do with the encyclopedia. Xoloz (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • <EC> Your argument holds water as long as we agree this is a joke category. Doc has stated he did not create it as a joke category but to outline a philosophy. I'm extending him the good faith of believing him. Therefore I reject the basis for your argument. Were we debating Category:Admins with big dicks, you'd have a point. Hiding T 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Some deleted categories that contain some humour about Wikipedia, or can be thought to be constructive in community building:

  Category:Userpages That Are Full Of LOL

  Category:Wikipedians whose userpages are intentionally left blank

  Category:Wikipedians with a Twisted Sense of Humour

  Category:Wikipedians with Practical Jokes on their user page

  Category:Wikipedians who defy categorisation

  Category:Wikipedians who refuse to be categorized

  Category:Wikipedians with over 5000 edits etc.

  Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators

  Category:Wikipedians who use userboxes for statistical reasons

  Category:Users Who Have Found Selfworm's Hidden Page

  Category:Wikipedians interested in Wikipedia You may think that all Wikipedians should be interested in Wikipedia, in the same way all admins should be open to constructive criticism.

  Category:Wikipedians who aren't administrators

  Category:Wikipedians who display their number of edits

  Category:Wikipedians who collect signatures of other Wikipedians

  Category:Wikipedians who believe their userboxes may be deleted

  –Pomte 14:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Response to Pomte, <edit conflict> It's not the categories we need to be looking at, it's the discussions. If all we went on was prior precedence, we wouldn't bother having the discussion, we'd just delete them straight away. WP:CSD lists the things we delete based on precedence, and there's a reason why humorous categories isn't listed there as C4. You make some good points. The point, however, is that they didn't carry the debate and a significant proportion of those commenting disagreed with the premise of your argument. A closer has to respect the feelings and judgement of Wikipedians. I get where Jc was coming from, but I think it disregarded what was said in that debate. Hiding T 15:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This should not be about personality conflicts or the alleged misdeeds of anyone involved. This should be about the pros and cons of deleting this. The crowd who cry "this should be a list, not a category, therefore delete" simply confuse me. I don't understand this reasoning at all. The best argument I've seen for deletion is that it's not useful, but the keep side respond that they do consider it useful. I still haven't seen a plausible case made for this being harmful in any way. Friday (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is sliding toward rearguing the CFD debate. Let me make one point clear though, the closer pointed to an essay to justify his deletion. Just for clarity let's review what an essay is This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Basing a close on an opinion piece is the ultimate IDONTLIKEIT. That's not a valid justification. RxS (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just thought I would mention that I don't oppose this being relisted for further discussion. - jc37 17:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Pomte. Also, I honestly don't believe that we would be having this DRV now if the category had been Category:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping. As far as admins saying that they are changing attitudes with this category: I think it is just more of an inside joke for IRC users, where the slap command is just a click away. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying you endorse your own deletion because you think it's an IRC joke? Is this really what passes for rational analysis these days? If there are concerns over one word in the title, isn't the obvious answer to bring up the concerns on the talk page? Why the rush in reaching for that delete button? I still don't understand why this was even nominated. Friday (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this help the encyclopedia or the people who visit? It doesn't. It doesn't even help the admins in the administration of the encyclopedia. That's why. --Kbdank71 15:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what the deletion debate was for? And wasn't there no consensus as to whether there was a use to the encyclopedia? Or do we only count those people whose opinion we agree with? I get why Jc closed it that way, I just think the debate was misread. The argument was basically "I see no use" against "I do", and no-one particularly referenced any killer policy because we haven't got one. If you are impartial, you don't get to agree with the people who say it has no use. Relist it and find the killer policy or guideline, or convince enough people that it has no use. Let's pretend we have a level playing field and all the rest of it. Community consensus decides what helps the encyclopedia or the people who visit or the community. Demonstrate the consensus better than was demonstrated in this debate, and the problem will go away. Hiding T 15:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You know what, let's turn the argument the other way. How does deleting this category help the encyclopedia or the people who visit? It doesn't. It doesn't even help the admins in the administration of the encyclopedia. How does this debate help the encyclopedia or the people who visit? It doesn't. It doesn't even help the admins in the administration of the encyclopedia. What's the damn point of being here? Is process that important we want to argue over this? Is there a flag planted in a principle so solid and pure and true that battle lines have to be drawn and I'm the only one so blind I can't see it? If not, someone please close this and tell people to move on with a lightly administered tap from a recently deceased trout. Self included. Jesus. Hiding T 16:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday, please try to tone down the rhetoric a bit and check your facts. I did not close the discussion as delete, thus I am not endorsing my own deletion. I can see you not agreeing with the decision, but to say that it was not even correct for it to be brought to the table for discussion implies that you are not being particularly objective here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log says you deleted it, per the deletion discussion. Yes, I see that someone else closed the discussion for some reason, but you're responsible for you deletions you perform. Friday (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday, you may wish to familiarize yourself with deletion process (WP:DELPRO). When an admin closes a CFD or UCFD as delete, rename or merge, they have the option of emptying (or whatever) the category or of placing the action on a page such as WP:CFD/W or WP:CFD/WU for a bot operator to perform the action. When the bot is done, an admin is requested to delete the category. No bot operator who works the page would ever refuse to run the action and no admin would ever stop at this point and deny the deletion. To suggest that the admin who presses the button for this G6 deletion is somehow responsible for the decision is just silly and for you to say that this counts as me endorsing my own deletion really makes me question your judgment. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a belt and braces approach meant that if your braces snap your belt ensure your willy isn't hanging out? I mean, I respect that bot operators aren't going to look at the cfd, but I would hope that a separate admin would maybe think twice before deleting Category:Physics and perhaps review the cfd. Which is to say, I agree with both you and Friday. Maybe this wasn't Category:Physics, but if you're pulling the trigger, you'd better be sure you have no doubt per policy. Hiding T 15:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm follow After Midnight. It almost sounded like you were saying that alhto you personally deleted this, you did not apply your own judgement as to whether or not it should be deleted. And, it also sounded like you don't see this as a problem. Surely I'm misunderstanding something? I can't believe it's standard practice to do such a thing- it sounds too preposterous. Friday (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You both really need to familiarize yourself with deletion process. The closing admin could do everything themselves if they chose to. The fact that they ask a bot operator for help does not mean that the bot operator has some special DRV privilege to question the admin's closing and refuse to execute it if they do not agree. As for Hiding's comment, no, Category:Physics would not be reviewed before it were emptied if it was placed at WP:CFD/W. The bots (at least Cydebot) run that page automatically and there is not even an opportunity for it to be questioned. Bot pages exist specifically so that people do not have to think. If the task is not "bot-able" then it shouldn't be placed on the page. If you think this is preposterous, you should probably start some discussion on an admin noticeboard or at the village pump to try to change things to how you like them, because currently this is in fact how things are done. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about bot operators. I said a lot about deleting admins. I even quoted policy guidance at you. I care more about policy guidance than I do about process. With respect, any admin who robotically deletes anything because it was listed somewhere gives me cause for concern. Hiding T 17:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, about that. There is a bot that does the deletions also. I guess you should be concerned because this has been accepted for quite some time now. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just looked at the process and suggest you review it yourself. It states that After all instances of the category used in pages have been removed, the category can be deleted by an administrator <my emphasis>. It does not state must, therefore your interpretation is incorrect. With respect, if you wish to change the page to agree with your interpretation, please consider starting some discussion on an admin noticeboard or at the village pump first. Also note that it states that "This relies on the discretion and common sense of the user closing a debate. If you disagree with a decision, please discuss it with that user." Therefore the decision of the closing admin may be disputed during the process. Again, with respect, if you wish to change the page to agree with your interpretation, please consider starting some discussion on an admin noticeboard or at the village pump first. Hiding T 17:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't pretend to respect me. We both know better. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for yourself. I make no pretence and have no issues with you or your opinions, other than to disagree with them in this instance. I believe the deletion process makes it quite clear that an admin is not bound to delete a category simply because it has been listed by the closing admin. Beyond that, I don't recall having crossed your path before. That you consider me with such disdain is of no matter. Hiding T 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion but not the reasons given. The category merited deletion as an example of Wikipedia:OC#Arbitrary inclusion criterion and Wikipedia:OC#Trivial intersection - Why only administrators? Why only trout? - as well as Wikipedia:OC#Non-defining or trivial characteristic, so the result was undoubtedly correct. All this and its not even 1 April. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, so now essays and guidelines override consensus (or replace the lack of it)? Actually, I've no problems with that, I will now use my interpretation of guidelines and essays when making XfD closures - no need to count the vote, or indeed read it at all.--Doc^g 20:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We know. That's how this got restored after the deletion. --Kbdank71 14:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per jc37's and Pomte's lengthy explanations. The main pro-retention argument given in the CFD is that the category expresses that an admin is open to criticism; however, that's a userpage notice, not a category. A category creates a grouping of users for the purpose of aiding navigation -- what, are people looking for a random admin to troutslap? All admins are supposed to be open to constructive criticism, so this category is just an in-joke. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, that's the first time I've understood the argument for deletion. That's for putting it so succinctly - most people lose me with long-winded complications or point to alphabet soup I've never heard of. I might even be persuaded by your argument. However, the a consensus on the cfd obviously were not. Under the same argument Category:Wikipedians by philosophy all would be deleted, yes?--Doc^g 21:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, and I apologise if my previous long comments contributed to increased confusion. With regard to the "consensus on the cfd", I think most editors in support of keeping did not address the point, failing to differentiate between the project-space page and the category. (The principle that categories should not be used only as userpage notices is fairly well-entrenched, supported by several hundred discussions over many months.) I support deletion of the Wikipedians by philosophy category tree, but am not convinced that these two cases are really comparable. (A number of "Wikipedians by philosophy" categories have been deleted, though the exact reason for deletion has sometimes varied from discussion to discussion.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn deletion - I reviewed discussion of this at the closer's talk page which seemed to be descending into arguments about what the nature of categories are. I think the closer has a bit of a different view of when things should be categories versus lists than the commonly accepted one. I think this may possibly be biasing the closer's views. Therefore I think any close of a category discussion is possibly suspect, and especially those where it is advocated in the close that the category be listified, turned into a user box or in some way kept around but not as a category. NB I have added myself to this category because I am an admin, and I try to be open to criticism of my actions, and I try not to take myself too seriously. (I hope all three are true :)... you tell me. ) ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm curious, first, what you think my "different view" is, and second, what you think the "commonly accepted one" is. (I ask this in light of noticing that I don't see that my view of categories is different than any of the other CfD regulars who are commenting in this discussion. If anything, I would guess I'm the most inclusionistic of those commenting. (But that, of course, may be a presumption.)) - jc37 09:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And here perhaps is the problem. Do the CFD regulars represent the views of the wider community or of themselves? Cards on the table, I've been complaining that CFD is a ghetto for over a year. Yes, it would be nice if the whole community got invloved, but they don't, and we can't enforce them. But each area of Wikipedia seems to have become a little cliqueish and perhaps we disregard opinion of those who aren't in the clique. Look at what happens when you try and eidt a policy or guidance page, or in some cases an essay. It's reverted by the regulars. Are these pages supposed to represent the views of the regulars, or is every voice to be respected. I know what our policies and guidance tell us, but it appears people are a little less interested in that than in protecting their patch. It's a fascinating experiment, Wikipedia. Both as an encyclopedia and as a community. Hiding T 15:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Since its creation a little over a year ago, Wikipedia:User categories for discussion has been edited by over 1000 unique users. While most are not what might be termed "regulars", there is a constant stream of editors in and out of UCFD. The "clique" to which you refer does not exist, especially since even the composition of "regulars" is constantly changing; and if you think that "regulars" at UCFD can disregard an opinion or simply steamroll opposition, then you've not seen the tantrums that some editors have thrown when their favourite category was nominated or deleted. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How many of those 1000 have edited it once? I lost count after a hundred. It was easier to count those who've edited it more than 100 times. Eighteen. As to whether cliques exist or not, that they change doesn't matter, that's what cliques do. The Rat Pack, for example, was founded by Humphrey Bogart and named by Lauren Bacall. I don't mean to cause offence or make cast aspersions, I simply wish to make an observation, which I think is somewhat supported by my experiences. You are welcome to disagree, but I'm not the first to comment on any such ghetto-isation, and I suspect I won't be the last. If you check back through the talk page archives, there was very much a real fear that UCFD was becoming a ghetto. Hiding T 19:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Fear, yes; but I don't believe any substantial evidence been offered? Editing a process page with as little activity as UCFD (compare it to CFD or AFD) 100 times is a significant commitment, so you should not ignore thresholds lower than 100. Also, I do not see how there be a clique when its supposed members frequently disagree with each other on such major issues as the validity of entire category trees (I have in mind the "Wikipedians by alma mater" and "Wikipedians by religion" category trees). Anyway, I realise that we're essentially arguing perceptions, so it's unlikely that either of us will be able to convince the other. Oh, well, c'est la vie. :-) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How low do you want to go? 2? And a clique is still a clique even when they disagree. Hiding T 23:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's my view. I think it's mainstream but I could be wrong... (As a note, I'm usually a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist when it comes to policy and practice and style, although sometimes I waver). A category is an organization tool. Nothing more. It's often, but not always, better than a list, because it's more self maintaining (it takes one edit to note you are in and add yourself, instead of two), and it's often, but not always, better than a userbox/image/template on a user page, because it doesn't require using "what links here", to find the members, which is counterintuitive for newish users. To argue about whether something should be a list instead of a category, when what we are talking about is a user category/list/userbox is missing the point. The people using the category have chosen to set it up that way. If people comment saying "I find this useful as a category", it's missing the point to say "but the philosophy of categorys and lists says it should be done this other way". That's not how we do things in general. Policy here is descriptive (of what people actually do), not prescriptive (of what they should do) Your closing of [{CAT:AOTR]] as listify was wrong. The users of the category (those who are in it and those who use it to find things out) are the best judges of whether it should be a category or not. Since you have continued to argue elsewhere that those saying you should not have closed it "listify" (which was an anti consensus close, by the way) were wrong, that calls your judgement about all UCfD into question, in my view, not just that one. Nothing personal, I just think you're misreading how things work here, by being prescriptivist when you should be descriptivist. Now, if this were articlespace, arguments about how things SHOULD be hold more water. But this is about userspace, where ease of use trumps style or theory. PS, I think Hiding has cottoned on to an important problem... Various areas of this vast project come up with all sorts of things that seem off when one checks them against the general theory of everything about this place. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The occupants of a user category do not own that category, and they have no superior jurisdiction over it. If a category is useful, non-users will be able to see its utility. At the least, those who see a category's value should be able to explain it to those who don't. So, how is this category being used? The only suggested use was as a nifty userpage notice; but - by your admission - that's not what a category is... – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Occupants of a user category may not own it but they can demonstrate a consensus for the keeping of that category. Consensus is determined by more than just a deletion debate. I'd be concerned to see a debate on a user category containing in excess of 1000 Wikipedians closed as delete. Do we disregard their opinion on the utility of the category in favour of those at the deletion debate? Hiding T 20:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly not! If they choose to participate, their opinion and the arguments they offer should most definitely be given equal consideration. ... Now, if I simply stopped here, I assume that you'd point out that they may not be aware of the deletion debate. But so what? Consensus is reached through discussion and judged by the strength of arguments, not by a simple headcount: applicable arguments can be presented and considered in a discussion between just a few people. There's no need to turn things into a vote by demanding that all members voice an opinion. More generally, if it is indeed true that most members of a category are not aware of deletion debates regarding the category, isn't that perhaps the best sign that they don't care? If I create a category that I'm interested in, I watchlist it. If I add myself to a list of users, I watchlist that page as well. The fact is that most people appear in categories because of userboxes, and it takes only one editor to add or remove a categorisation function to a userbox. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, consensus can be reached through editing as much as it can through discussion, so ignoring edits when determining consensus is bad. Your attitude seems somewhat cavalier here; almost I do not care what those people have done, I merely care what these people have discussed. That's the sort of thinking WP:CABAL is supposed to warn against. Since we're discussing a debate here where there is no intrinsic consensus, is it not possible we should also have weighted in the edits of a couple dozen editors or whatever it was? The debate centred on the utility of the category. Either people find it useful or they don't. There was no consensus as to the use, unless you factor in the people who found it useful enough to use it, at which point you see a consensus that it is of use. And the listify close disregards guidance that list builders should not tear down Wikipedia's category system. There needs to be a consensus to delete a category, because that's what you do when you listify. Decisions on Wikipedia are supposed to be made by the community, and reflect community consensus. Whatever else we discuss here, I simply do not believe the close of the debate under question did that. Hiding T 21:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In most cases, "what those people have done" is to add a userbox. So, while that argument might carry weight in a TFD for the userbox, it has little or no relevance to a CFD on the category. More generally, and as I've stated elsewhere, there is no basis for claiming that the mere fact that a category is populated indicates consensus for its existence, especially when we're dealing with categorisation by userboxes. Also, "while the debate centred on the utility of the category", simply stating "It's useful" is not a replacement for an explanation of how it's useful. The only utility suggested during the discussion was as a bottom-of-the-page notice, which years of community discussion and consensus has determined that categories are not. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Simply saying it isn't useful is not enough either. Nor is saying it is nonsense. You can disregard one side of the debate for being lacking in the how, but then you have to judge the other side by the same standard. Nobody actually explained how it harmed, hindered or prevented collaboration on the encyclopedia. Hiding T 23:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The burden of proof is on those arguing for retention, and one shouldn't be asked to prove the non-existence of something (in this case, potential utility). As for juding "the other side", I don't think we should make inclusion/exclusion decisions solely on the basis of whether a page is or isn't actively harmful; failing to be useful is enough reason to delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's argued up above that the burden of proof is on the deleter, since the default is keep. Guess there's no consensus on that either. I always thought the burden was on every user to explain themselves or have their opinion disregarded. I've already pointed out how I've read the debate, maybe it would be useful if you did the same? Hiding T 00:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Per Black Falcon. Keeping this sends the message that joke categories are ok as long as enough people say they like it or it's funny, which goes against what we have been trying to do at UCFD for over a year. While consensus is important, and generally I would agree that consensus should trump most other concerns, in this case my conscience tells me the right decision was made. VegaDark (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is, maybe what you've been trying to do at UCFD doesn't reflect the wider communities wishes. Note I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm saying maybe it doesn't. Hiding T 21:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If that is the case, which may be true, it should be discussed somewhere bigger than an individual nomination where a policy can actually be established. I've wanted that for a long time, but it has never happened. Perhaps situations like this can get one started? VegaDark (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've always considered WP:NOT to be the relvant policy, and these past months of discussion have mostly been based on that policy. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly the fact that Wikipedia is not a moot court and that rules are not the purpose of the community. Hiding T 23:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, my focus was more on the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" gist of that policy. :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's where you're going wrong. That only applies to the encyclopedia. The community has a whole separate section. The one I like best is that wikipedia is not a discussion forum and it is best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories. Hiding T 00:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "The community has a whole separate section." - That's a place where (and I hate to be the one to break it to you), you're incorrect. It's been established, and continually reaffirmed that all spaces are part of the encyclopedia. While userspace may be used in indirect support, that doesn't change that fact. Is there value to "community-building" pages? In my opinion, yes, absolutely! However, not everyone shares that opinion. But when it comes to categories, we've seen it repeated again and again that categories shouldn't be used for that. (See the userbox wars of the past to see the argument about template space.) I don't know if they've all changed their minds now that a pet category has come up for discussion, but I believe several of those supporting keeping this (including Doc glasgow) have, in the past, supported deleting similar categories. (And no, this isn't a sideways insult, it's merely an observation.) - jc37 03:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It also sends the equally-problematic message that joke categories are ok as long as they are for admins only. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - See what this has spawned? (no pun intended) - Category:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping. Now if this gets overtuned and the new category gets deleted, who knows what sort of complaints might emerge. VegaDark (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What spawned it though? The creation of the admin cat, the creation of the trout page, the deletion of the admin page, this review? WHich one. I don't know and I don't really care anymore. It's not as if it matters. It's like, one side of this debate sees the user categories as one thing, and the other side says, well, hey we don't, and god knows. You ever see a heart beat? It contracts and then it expands and then it contracts and then it expands. Maybe the user category was contracted as far it could go and now it is expanding again. Who can tell. After all these words I still can't see that debate as anything other than no consensus. Hiding T 23:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That really was a poor thing to do - given these ongoing discussions it would have been prudent to wait for the result before creating an alternative. Suggesting it here would've been a much better thing to do. violet/riga (t) 18:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per Lar, and because WP:ILIKEIT. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable spoken word performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reason given for closure was that the list could be categorized, but that is problematic. Torc2 (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the names on the list do not have articles written about them. How do you add a category to an article that doesn't exist?Torc2 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. There are at least 10,000,000 notable things that do not have Wikipedia articles yet, and we'll survive. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's really not any kind of answer.Torc2 (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long version: The AfD was closed as delete based on the assumption that the list would work better as a category. This causes two problems. The more bureaucratic one is that per WP:CLS, a category shouldn't be seen as a substitute for a list (or vice versa), so using "It'll work better as a category rather than a list" is a flawed excused for deleting a list. The bigger, less officious problem is that many of the the names on the list don't have Wiki articles written about them yet - (not necessarily because the names aren't notable, but just because it's such a specialized topic that editors haven't gotten around to creating articles for everybody), so there's really no way the list could be adequately transformed to a category when there's so many non-existent we can't add category tags to. Thanks. Torc2 (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: I don't really see this as problematic. I have long thought of AfDing the List of snooker players on a similar basis (and haven't only because I don't want to irritate other snooker article editors; I would like to see the WP:SNOOKER project discuss the matter first). Category:Snooker players and its by-nationality subcats appear to be to be perfectly adequate, and there is not much point to a list of allegedly notable personages of one sort or another that is full of redlinks. I'm highly skeptical that such lists actually regularly generate bio articles, though I am generally a fan of the notion that redlinks encourage article creation. If the individuals in question are genuinely notable, they will eventually have articles, and will (hopefully) be properly categorized. This is explicitly an eventualist point; I am immediatist in other ways, such as resolving the two-article contradiction outlined at #Card shark, below. Some things need to be fixed now, others are a matter for progressive WP growth over time. Another way of looking at it is that it would probably be completely trivial, as a matter of effort, for someone from India who is a big fan of carrom to produce a List of notable carrom players, but the actual utility of such a list to our readers would be near-zero, as it would only have a handful of bluelinks in it, all of them to stubs. Category:Carrom players is just fine. It is very under-populated now, but come back in ten years and it will be quite rich. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of having redlinks on the list isn't to encourage creation of those articles; it's because the people listed are actually important to the field. The fact most of the names are redlinked doesn't make the list useless, it just means whoever needs that information will have to do research on those people elsewhere. It's pretty well established that being on Wikipedia does not automatically make a person notable, but by the same token, not being on Wikipedia doesn't mean the person is not notable. The list of names shouldn't be viewed as just a way to navigate through Wikipedia quickly: its primary purpose is as a piece of information for further research; the redlinks just mean that research will have be done elsewhere. A list allows us to give users information about people who might not have their own articles yet (or ever); how do we include these people in a category if they don't have Wikipedia articles about them? Torc2 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think I can agree with much of anything you have said here, even down to the claim that being the subject of WP article does not make one notable, since of course one cannot (for long!) have a WP article without in fact being notable, given that lack of notability is a well-recognized deletion criterion. Cf. tautology. If the people on the list seriously might never have their own articles, then not only is their inclusion in the list questionable, but the existence of the list itself here is questionable, as POV and a trivia-promotion vector. No intent is alleged here, I want to clarify; only an effect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your response assumes that all notable names will have article. If that's the case, why would any article be created for anything notable prior to December 21, 2007? The list is simply a piece of information that cannot be represented as a category; the fact that some of the links have associated articles and some do not is purely incidental. If entries on the list require citation, that's best left to ((fact)) tags, not AfD. The list is no more trivia or PoV than any other List of artist-type articles. Torc2 (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as the admin who closed the AfD. Consensus on the AfD (as I read it) was to delete the article as listcruft, and make use of the existing category. Per naming conventions, the title was problematic as POV, and without the "Notable" it would become the indiscriminate List of spoken word performers (what would qualify one for inclusion - would I, as a pastor, be included? What I do is spoken word performance.). However, I welcome the opportunity for others to give my closure the once over, and welcome whatever consensus of this DRV is. Pastordavid (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The naming problem I agree with, but this can be solved simply by renaming the article. (Also, per WP:BIO#Lists of people, "notable" is eschewed in names not because it's POV, but because it's already assumed.) Notability could still be a requirement established in the article header, and backed up by secondary sources as required. This gives lists a clear advantage over categories since WP:V enforcement in categories ranges from lax to non-existent. This isn't the only list article that is potentially open-ended. I don't agree with the listcruft argument at all; the article is closer to List of Romantic composers than it is to List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles organizations. It just disturbs me that this content when from being part of Spoken Word to being split off and AfD'd in seven minutes. Torc2 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per above. It should be no problem to use the above link to the cached version and add links to the existing categories. The closer appears to have read the consensus to category-fy correctly, but such categories already exist. A delete is appropriate. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - the balance of the argument is for the use of categories and against having this list. The problem with the list is that there is no added value. I notice that the nominator has merged the list back into the Spoken word article where it is, for the same reasons, pointless and looks silly but that is now a separate editorial matter. BlueValour (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I've explained the added value - or rather, the shortcomings of categories - quite clearly. Personally I think the categories are obtuse and unhelpful. For example, look at the category - if I want to find a list of artists, where do I go? "Spoken word artists"? "Spoken word poets"? How do I separate off the names from all the other subjects in the categories? There's a reason WP:CLS says category-or-list should not be an either/or decision. As for the article, I simply undid an edit that resulted in useful information being deleted due to bureaucratic maneuvering. Torc2 (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion the perceived problems are not. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How are they not? Torc2 (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Card shark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Short version (added after initial "endorse keep" !votes): It's an unsourced stub that directly contradicts a reliably sourced article, into which the stub's salvageable content has already been merged anyway. Update: A third party, no party to this dispute in any forum, has tagged it with the ((Articleissues)) variant of ((Contradict-other)); i.e. other editors are now declaring it to be contradictory with another article. Further update: A fourth party, also no party to this dispute in any forum that nominator is aware of, has observed at Talk:Card sharp#Contradiction that card shark is in conflict with card sharp and is "dubious". Further further update: Article at Card Sharks demonstrates usage of that term in a context in which no skill of any kind is implied, further deflating the assertion that the term necessarily means "skilled card player", since the game in question is based on random guessing. What more could possibly be needed to put this to bed? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long version begins here: An examination of the actual rationales given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Card shark, and the extensive material on the issue at Talk:Card sharp, shows that the argument for deletion/merge is very, very well-sourced, while the arguments for keeping the POV-forked stub are completely unsourced and apparently unsourceable, since sources for it were outright forged. WP:AFD is not a vote, so the fact that "keep" !votes outnumber the "delete"/"merge" ones is not significant when, as is the case here, the "keep" !votes are uniformly of the WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IKNOWIT invalid argument forms per WP:AADD... when they are not false claims about sources. Also, the content of the articles were in fact already merged long before the AfD was even opened, so we now have not just competing articles, but conflicting ones: A well-sourced one at Card sharp that covers both the negative and positive uses of the terms, and their history and etymology (as noted below, a new source remains to be added, pending resolution of this debate); and a unsourced POV stub at Card shark that advances someone's personal theory that the usages are distinct, despite there being no reliable sources for this claim, and a mountain of them against it. No sources in support of the separation have been cited – not in the article, not on the talk pages, and not at AfD. No hard feelings toward admin The Placebo Effect (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the closer of the AfD; I simply can't agree that a consensus of "keep" can be found here, on the basis of policy (NPOV, NOR, V). Card shark must redirect to Card sharp on the evidence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The !votes in favor of keeping the stub are not even particularly numerous; it was 7–4, with the points raised by the "keep" !votes refuted and most of those refutations unaddressed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep, yes AfD is not a vote, however there wasn't a clean consensus to delete either and if anything the result would be no consensus considering there was evidence the terms are related but do not have the same mutual meaning. In the course of writing this response I looked up "card sharp" and "card shark" up on dictionary.com and they brought back seperate results with shark being an "Expert cardplayer" while sharp was "a professional card player who makes a living by cheating at card games". Card shark did link to card shark as its secondary definition but it is evident that these terms are not exclusive to the simple "cheating player" definition. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I've demonstrated that they do have the same mutual meanings, with source after source. A small handful of sources, including Dictionary.com and (importantly) the abridged Webster's volumes which directly conflict with their unabridged "master", can possibly be interpreted (and quite possibly misinterpreted) to suggest that "card shark" may be becoming a separate term with a distinct meaning, while also retaining the same meaning as "card sharp", but even this idea is directly refuted by other reliable sources. I believe that given the level of sourcing brought to bear on this that card shark must be deleted, because it is an unsourced stub that directly conflicts with a well-sourced article. That this is even actually still subject to discussion is rather amazing to me, since WP:V is a pretty clear policy. In the short term, the idea (to the extent it is not WP:OR) that "card shark" may be shifting in meaning toward positive usage can possibly be addressed at the merged article, given some reliable sourceson that idea itself (maybe some recent poker books that document usage among modern players?), but there is insufficient extant evidence that two articles are warranted. In the very long term, i.e. after another generation of dictionarian work, there may be enough evidence around for the terms being severable.

I also have to disagree that it should be closed as "no consensus", because the genuinely actionable rationales brought to bear in the debate are entirely on the side of the merger, which has already taken place anyway; the AfD was simply a post-merge formality, with the specific purpose of having card shark speediable if it is re-forked again without evidence for its legitimacy, in response to just such a POV-pushing re-fork. Some !voters seeking to keep the stub on bases that are covered at WP:AADD does not mean that a consensus of merge/delete was not reached, since the only arguments that count are those that have a basis in reliable sourcing and policy, not AADD "noise". Think of the horror that would be inflicted upon us if random garage band articles could be kept on the basis of 50 of their school chums showing up to meatpuppet in a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IKNOWIT !votes. No real difference here, other than meatpuppetry isn't happening; the underlying issue is the same.

Anyway, this isn't even a case of "well, it can be sourced later", since the matter has already been sourced to death, with the weight of evidence strongly in favor of the terms being interchangeable, even if the OED (alone, out of all sources cited so far) suggests that their ultimate German derivation could actually differ. (That possibility and its OED source still needs to be added to the card sharp article; I did not want to edit it while the dispute was still open.) PS: I don't even focus on card-game related articles; I'm skeptical that I've even edited one before. I have no axe to grind with regard to this topic, I simply can't stand us having contradictory articles, especially when that contradiction is not reliably sourceable, and the article that is reliably sourced already addresses the usage and meaning issues anyway. There is ample precedent for undoing content forks of this nature. PPS: The card sharp article already gives both definitions and both terms, so your closing point is already adequately addressed (unless I am misunderstanding it). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is re-listing this for further discussion, but I strongly suspect that this will be unproductive. The number of editors willing to actually read and analyze the big stockpile of sourcing on the matter is surely a much smaller digit than those willing to throw in a WP:IKNOWIT argument and ignore the sources entirely; I predict that we'd end up with something like a 12–6 but equally unsupported majority for "keep", and be right back here, meanwhile WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, backed by WP:RS and WP:POVFORK, are already telling us "delete", loud and clear. Clearly it is untenable for us to have two articles that contradict each other. If merging them and enforcing that merge are not the solution, I'm curious what other possibilities would be reasonable. Doing an RfC on the matter seems likely to be interpreted as forum shopping unless it was done by someone other than me, and it seems too small an issue for WP:ARBCOM to want to bother with (though I think they would confirm that WP:V and other cited policies are in fact the controlling principles). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of looking at it: I want to quote Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who I generally find to be rather wikiwise: " 'Consensus', when skewed by a determined group of biased editors[,] cannot overrule policy." (from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 19#Barbara Schwarz). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another salient quote, from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 20#Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping: "–'Consensus' doesn't mean 'vote counting', but all too frequently too many people get those two mixed up." --Kbdank7

• endorse Keep the reason for deletion seems to be that one person thinks his side is right and the other people wrong. This is not AfD2 DGG (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Alternatively, keep & deal with editorially per Uncle G. DGG (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This doesn't have anything at all to do with what one editor thinks, only with what the reliable sources indicate, and they are heavily supportive of the terms being interchangeable. Almost all of the exceptions (I think there is but one hold-out) are abridged Webster's volumes that conflict with their own unabridged parent. This is simply a WP:V issue. We have a well-sourced article here and an unsourced stub directly contradicting it there. The only reasonable outcome is a merge (which has already happened, over a week ago) and a redirect (which has been reverted, thus the AfD). If someone wants to question the sourced facts (good luck!) they can do that at the merged article and (very, very hypothetically) the articles could be re-forked at some point when the viewpoint that the terms are legitimately severable is actually sourced. I mean, come on. You and a few others here are arguing for keeping an unsourced stub that directly conflicts with a heavily and reliably sourced article. What on earth is the point of this exercise? I recognize that the vast majority of things brought to DRv are upheld as closed, on both specifics and on the general principle that that closing admin was conscientious and paying attention, but this is the first time in over a year I have brought something to DRv, I allege no wrongdoing on the part of the closer, just a difference of interpretation, and am citing ironclad policy on the matter. WP:V is not some random "oh, well, I'll adhere to it if I feel like it" guideline. So, if to any extent this opposition is reflexive, please knock if off and actually address the facts being presented, both as to sources and as to policy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure - I am aware that I am falling foul of WP:IKNOWIT but I do:-) A Shark uses skill and a Sharp cheats - as most everyone has tried to say. The reason for a lack of sources is that the normal term is Shark not Card shark. In the AfD the suggestion was made to move the page to Shark (gaming) which makes sense since the simple term Shark can be well sourced in poker but that is without this DRV ... BlueValour (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Precisely: It is WP:IKNOWIT. The best (per sources) that can be said about this alleged distinction is that it might be an American English neologism as a truly distinct term – an assertion that remains unsourced to sort-of-half-sourced at best (with sources that also, in every single case cited to date, clearly indicate synonymity as well), and which is directly contradicted by several reliable (eminently reliable, I would say), and also American, sources, so one cannot even raise a UK vs. US English gripe here. Even if it were sourceable, it would remain suspicious as grounds for a separate article, per WP:NEO. Pushing for the separation (which I do not allege that "keep" endorsers are necessarily doing; "endorse keep" and "keep" are not actually the same !vote) can also be interpreted as ignoring policy simply to make a point about or toward an editor whose XfD is simply unpopular or who isn't making fans because he is a bulldog about such matters. I really wish people reading this would get the point without me having to shout it, but here we go: This is not about whose POV is correct; it is only and entirely about sources. No sources, no article unsourced, POV-forked and contradictory stub. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I agree that whether there should be a Shark (gaming) article is a different matter entirely. It is one I would have to oppose, as the so-far-presented and some additional (i.e. in pool) source research into the matter contradicts this idea. We cannot simply go around throwing up new articles on "X" and "Y" just because we have a personal pet theory (WP:NOR) that they are legitimate article subjects. There is simply an avalanche of evidence that the term originated as a negative, regardless of the spelling, and has, through sarcastic and figurative usage, also come to have a positive meaning (cf. the word "bad"), and also happens to have forked for unclear reasons into "sharp" and "shark" spellings, with both spellings sharing both definitions. Period. Any further assertions about the terms are going to have have to have reliable sources, which in turn are going to have to contend with already-provided reliable sources that say they simply off-kilter on this matter. I think that the best that can be done is what has already been done at card sharp (other than OED also needs to be cited on the matter, as to possible ultimate derivation of the root words, as already noted at the AfD). That article documents both spellings and both meanings and includes a (non-novel-synthesis) analysis of their history. What, pray tell, can we possibly do otherwise, and why, pray tell, could anyone be supporting the retention of a content fork that is already rendered moot by a merged and reliably-sourced article expansion at card sharp? I think I am going to be bald within twelve hours (because I have a lot of hair and it will take that long to yank all of it out) just from pulling out my own hair at the outright astoundingness (if I can make up a word that should exist and might actually be a word, but which my spell-checker says is not actually a word) that this debate even exists much less has not already concluded "well, duh, delete the unsourced stub, per WP:V." PS: Also, not "most everyone" in the debate said that the terms were distinguishable – it was 7–4. Regardless, even if 159 people asserted distinguishability without sources, their arguments would remain invalid per WP:V and per overwhelming WP:AFD precedent as recorded at WP:AADD, namely at WP:ILIKEIT and related sections. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether the article remains standalone or is merged into card sharp, an administrator doesn't have to hit a delete button at any point. And that's what Articles for deletion is for deciding. Even an editor without an account can do the merger that is desired here. The proper venue for discussing merger is the article's talk page. And the proper venue for attracting outside attention to that discussion is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. The closure here seems entirely proper, and in accordance with our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The closing administrator decided that hitting a delete button wasn't required. And that what Deletion review is for deciding.

  Article merger does not involve deletion, AFD, or Deletion review at any stage of the process. Uncle G (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The merger has already taken place, and the card shark POVfork was recreated, and that is an AfD matter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you're mistaken. The article appears to have been undeleted to allow for the merge. If it was a recreation, it wouldn't include the entire history of the article so far. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and merge. In the AfD, no one satisfiably countered SMcCandlish's arguments. Let's use common sense here to see that having Card shark as it is now is detrimental to the encyclopedia. If you want to defend The Truth, back it up with sources and then undo the merge. Encourage starting an RfC. –Pomte 15:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Deletion review is not for judging whether something is detrimental to the encyclopedia or not; it's for judging the procedural issues involved in the close.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, and it should be clear what my judgment is on the procedure in this case. Since the keep arguments contradict with policy, they do not contribute to consensus. –Pomte 17:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The losing side in an AfD can always quote policy to their support. If we have 9-4 against deleting, all reasonable Wikipedia editors, I wouldn't delete without a WP:BLP issue. In this case, Card shark is arguable WP:V, and if the argument won AfD, it's not for us to second-guess it here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It's hard to be sure whether you've countered all of SMcCandlish's arguments because he is so prolix. But I did due diligence and am satisfied that there are distinct words, concepts and etymologies which can support separate articles. My interest is now whether WP:NAM or WP:LAME is the most appropriate policy or whether there there is an even better one.  :) Colonel Warden (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Satisfied on what basis? Also, neither of those are policies, just essays, and I am not "angry" or "editwarring", I'm following the provided procedures to get rid of a POV-forked, unsourced stub that conflicts with a well-sourced article, that two other editors have now flagged as problematic as well. I have to note (again) that card sharp already gives both spellings and both meanings, and the bulk of the sources found so far give both for both (which is why the article says this in the first place). That one source, the OED, proposes that sharp, shark and (the obsolete as a noun) shirk may actually have different ultimate German derivations, that is simply interesting and not germane to the discussion; words do not have to be cognate to be synonymous (cf. "head" and "cranium".) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Head and Cranium are not synonyms and that's why we have separate articles for them. I am likewise satisfied that shark and sharp are not synonyms. As for the essays, Pomte's suggestion of The Truth seems more apt than the others but they all seem worth reading in this situation. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep. There obviously are sources that separate these two terms, as Lid shows. Whether or not they are important enough to keep these two articles separate is not a decision for Deletion Review. There was a case to be made, and apparently the people agreed with the case, right or wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What Lid showed is that even his dictionary says they are synonyms. It has been argued by me in this debate the whole time that both terms exist and both have (the same) two meanings, which card sharp adequately covers. All Lid has done is find a dictionary that provides both definitions for one term, and doesn't bother to do this for the other for one reason or another, presumably because it already said they were synonymous. Other sources cited provide both definitions for both spellings, and this is all adequately covered by the merged article, which even goes into when such the meanings started to become distinguishable, and so on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep closure Merge is a variety of the general species keep, not a form of delete. Merges are supposed to be discussed on article talk pages, not at AFD or DRV. No case for deletion is presented in the AFD or here. Go forth to the appropriate article talk page to discuss and form consensus on merging. GRBerry 15:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merge was discussed there, and 100% of the evidence supplied was for merger. This AfD and DRV are not about the merge, they are about the recreating of the post-merge unsourced stub at card sharp. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep closure merge is a job for editors, not deletion processes. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I writing in Ancient Aramaic or something? This is not about the merge, it is about deleting the unsourced the POV fork. How many times do I have to say this? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep. AFD round 2 should be carried out at AFD after a reasonable amount of time, and only if you feel that there is good reason to believe that consensus has indeed shifted. Consensus was reasonably clear on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for "delete", since the only arguments raised that have any basis in policy and sources were for deletion, and the keep !votes were all WP:AADD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keeping history. If the content is merged, it is not legally possible to delete the article history. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has happened before and will again to prevent POVforking. I've even seen such things SALTed. Another possible solution would be for an admin to restore the redirect and then full-protect the page to prevent the reforking. I don't really care which. As the article is unsourced there is nothing in its history worth saving. Even calling it a merge, really, was simply a politeness. What really happened is that virtually nothing was salvageable from card shark, and what it was trying to say was restated from scratch (minus unsourceable POV pushing), with sources at card sharp. There is no issue here. On WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V alone, the card shark stub should be deleted immediately, because it has been amply demonstrated that it can't be sourced. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]