The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. A few comments on the close

List of Iranian women

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Iranian women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article was listed for deletion on July 8, with no consensus reached. That AfD can be found right here. The previous AfD seemed to lean heavily on emotional input, rather than a practical view of the list itself. Eventually, a list like this becomes unmaintainable. Categorization is a much more practical solution for a list this vague - it brings together all of the notable Iranian women on one page, and splits them off into their appropriate subcategories automatically via the use of templates on the individual pages. This way, the editors who seem to want to keep this list based on WP:ILIKEIT can focus their energies on expanding the list by adding notable Iranian women, without the immense task of maintaining and patrolling this article. Therefore, I believe the best and most efficient solution is to delete this page after categorizing its contents. Sidatio 03:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No consensus is not an overwhelming decision to keep. Please don't confuse the two. I have stated my rationale - in essence, the list itself isn't deleted. Rather, it is turned over to automation. This way, the list itself is maintained as a category, which automatically updates every time a new article is added on Iranian women - all you have to do is add the proper template. This frees up manpower to add articles on notable Iranian women who don't already have them, and takes away a target for vandalism at the same time. Best of all, it eliminates the need to patrol and maintain a list that has strong potential to spiral out of control as more and more notable Iranian women get their due here. It's nothing personal - it's an advocation for more efficient addition and maintenance of a list of notable Iranian women. What's the rationale to keep that satisfies guidelines? Sidatio 03:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, in this particular case you are talking about hypothetical events. I strongly believe that Wikipedia can have a future only if common sense prevails and common sense tells me that all these discussions about deletion, and the like, are simply a waste of time. The less we spend time on these discussions, the better, both for us personally, and for Wikipedia insofar as its contents are concerned. Strong Keep! --BF 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, now! Let's not forget civility here. I may not know all of the "proper" procedures for doing things around here, but I have seen AfDs relisted for lack of consensus. As far as sour grapes goes - what's your basis for such a claim? I never even participated in the first debate!
As far as the author's response - the goal is to make this list more efficient. Instead of eliminating it altogether, I offer an efficient compromise. Taking it personally, as you seem to be doing, is certainly an emotional response. Sidatio 04:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would prefer citation of policy, though: The list seems to violate WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#LINK. A great argument could be made also for WP:LC under criteria 1, 6, and possibly 7. In the interest of diplomacy, I was trying to offer the compromise solution first, but hey - what can you do? Sidatio 04:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and also overlistification. Granted, it's not as open-ended as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Europeans, but it is still pretty open-ended. Sidatio 04:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was July 8th. Sidatio 05:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moon 04:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer me this - if it's converted into a category, how is the list lost? Sidatio 05:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you visited the Taj Mahal. It is not the dome, the minarets, its exquisite calligraphy, its, wonderful symetry that makes it a beautiful structure. It is all of it put together and seen as a whole that makes it one of the Seven wonders of the World.

moon 05:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It's a good thing I have a thick skin.
For starters (and this is important), I am not proposing this list goes the way of the dodo. The aim is to get all of these notable women categorized so the system can maintain the list, which frees editors for a far more meaningful task - expanding that category with more notable Iranian women.
Secondly, I wasn't a participant in the first AfD. This isn't a "war of attrition" for me. The article drew my interest because of a similar AfD on a list of Indian women where consensus seems to be leaning toward categorizing the list and deleting the actual article. The only reason I even nominated this one for deletion is because the first AfD was a no consensus. If there was a clear keep, I honestly wouldn't have bothered. If this AfD goes to a clear keep, hey, that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.
Finally, this isn't some personal crusade against women, Iranians, Indians, Hufflepuffs, or orangutans. It was just a suggestion. If you feel the need to be uncivil and not assume good faith, feel free. I'm married. I'm used to being yelled at. ;-) I can assure you, I only had the project's best interests in heart. If it's a keep, fantastic. If it's a categorize and delete, equally as fantastic. My only interest is in the efficiency of the list on the whole.
I guess this is a by-product of being bold! :-) Sidatio 05:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All bold decisions have beautiful results. That's why Bold and Beautiful always go together. Sidatio be bold enough to recognize the beauty of lists. We recognize the beauty of categorization but that's for the less ambitious projects. Leave the heritage structures alone. Thanks !

moon 05:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep, if the redlisted entries are removed. Also, why are some women listed as "Plastic Art" just above "Artists"? Shouldn't they all be listed as "Artists"?Speciate 06:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists as well as Categories ( Beauty and Utility ). Long Live the spirit of Wikipedian togetherness. moon 06:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was pretty much forced to set the record straight on a great amount of comments that seemed to have my reasons for opening this AfD completely wrong. And then, of course, there are these comments that address me directly. As far as feeling "isolated" - what? To me, an AfD isn't a popularity contest. It's an attempt to find community consensus on an article. Nothing more, nothing less. As to having the "temerity to speak of a lack of consensus last time" - that was, in fact, the result of the previous AfD on this article.
As to your request to withdraw: No. As I stated, the aim of an AfD is to find consensus on an article that may or may not be in violation of a policy or policies. You just can't gain consensus in a matter of a few hours. We'll see what happens, say, Monday.
Finally - my "personal ambition" in life is to become independently wealthy and retire young. I don't believe it's possible for me to care any less about the existence of this or any other article (or, for that matter, Wikipedia itself) than I do right now. I had an opinion on the article, I took it to AfD. If community consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it, you can be comfortably certain that it won't affect me personally in the least.
I don't think I can contribute anything further. Honestly, if anyone else out there mistakes my position, they simply haven't read what I've had to say on it. Sidatio 11:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, I was wrong. There IS something else I can add. For all of the fluff this page contains, NOT ONE PERSON HAS BOTHERED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED BY THIS AfD. Those issues are:
  • The list seems to violate WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#LINK.
  • There also seems to be issues with this article as listcruft - it seems the list exists just for the sake of having it; it is unlimited or unmaintainable; and that the list has no content beyond links to other articles. (1, 6, and 7 on the listcruft criteria, respectively)
  • Finally, overlistification - specifically as an over-extensive list. From that guideline:

"When a list is prone to having many listees that can never have an article written about them, or that simply fail notability, the list can usually be deemed as over-extensive and would probably function better as a category. It can equally be called over-extensive if the list is unmaintainably large and generally unnecessary, and thus, would server better as a directory. Wikipedia is not paper but it is bytes." (emphasis added)

So, instead of wild speculation or namecalling, I don't suppose it's possible to address the technical merits of the article for a change? Sidatio 11:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is the problem with being new to a project as complex as Wikipedia. I wasn't aware that there was a proper timeframe for relisting a debate - I was just going by what I had seen before in the AfD logs. I don't have a problem in the world with beginning to categorize this list starting tomorrow. As far as bringing this up too early, that wasn't my intention in the least. Does anyone have a link to the timeframe for relisting so I can become less ignorant on the topic? :-) Sidatio 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not policy. Since the last AfD ended without consensus, it is perfectly proper to relist after a resonable time. If it had ended with a consensus of keep, on the other hand, it would be very poor form. If it had only been a couple of days after a "no consensus" closing, that may also be bad form. If there is a policy that states otherwise, I have not seen it. --Evb-wiki 17:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I usually dislike repeated nominations after two or three weeks, but this was only the 2nd nomination, and it had been closed as a no-consensus. As I see it, no-consensus closes should be relisted fairly soon in an attempt to get consensus--and then of course should be stable, keep or delete, unless there are errors or new information. I therefore do not see how it justifies the strong complaints expressed above. DGG (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS : The viability of list should be left to the "market forces". Wikipedia admin may consider an automated delisting of archaic articles that are not visited , improved, edited for a certain period of time. This de-listing would be automatic ,genuine and largely unbiased.

moon 07:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's about vote-stacking. At least, I hope it's not. This AfD just seems to be emotionally charged based on the treatment of women in the Iranian culture - just as I suspect it was during the AfD for List of Indian women. In conversations with some of the proponents of this list, I've come away with the feeling that they believe this to be "another blow" to an already battered gender. That is in no way, shape, form, or fashion the case here. Those who are in favor of removing this list do advocate the categorization of its contents. It's a list, just a list that is maintained automatically. There are several other benefits that I already outlined at length, but I digress. This isn't some "battle" that has to be "won" or "lost". It's a discussion about a list and whether or not it would be more beneficial to turn that list over to automation. I am of the opinion that the topic is best discussed based on the merits - and the merits alone - of the list's maintainability. Emotion far too often clouds the all-important neutral point of view.

Sidatio 17:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is the best argument I've heard for a keep yet. Still, there's a few differences that should probably be highlighted:
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, the List of former members of the United States House of Representatives is not, nor will it ever be, as open ended as a list of notable people of a certain gender from a country. Why? Inclusion on the former list is a great deal more exclusive than inclusion on the latter - only 435 people from a country of 300 million are Representatives at any time. Inclusion on the latter is effectively half of a country's population, provided they do something notable. Also, you'd have to take in account historical figures as well - and the recorded history of the Iranian area is one of the longest.
  • It also bears mentioning that the AfD for the US Representative list was withdrawn by nominator in less than 24 hours. Is 24 hours enough time to gain community consensus?
Still, the points raised are a valid argument. Not enough to change my mind on the subject, though. Sidatio 11:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--that's kind of the point, I think. Wikipedia:Not#Dir: "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." --Moonriddengirl 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"... as they say (it comes from Proverbs), the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The problem with Iranian women, in particular, is that the transliteration of their names is not unique. Consequently, if you do not know the exact spelling of their names, then soon you will conclude that the particular name that you were looking for has no entry in Wikipedia (for instance, "Forough", "Foroog", "Forouq" and "Forooq" are all transliterations of the same Persian name; multiply this number by the number of the variant spellings of "Farrokhzad" and you will readily realise that the chance of correctly guessing the appropriate spelling on Wikipedia of "Forough Farrokhzad" is indeed very small). This makes the List of Iranian Women indispensable: knowing merely the sound of the name is sufficient to find the name from the list by looking through it. This has happened to me almost always. This problem is not unique to Persian; in principle any language which does not rely on Roman letters is confronted with the same problem on the English Wikipedia. You should realise that my advocacy of the page is largely for its functional utility which cannot be compensated until such time as the search engines have become so clever that they can correctly guess a name even if one may have used an "incorrect" spelling (the search engine on Amazon.com, for instance, is rather clever in coming up with a list of relevant books even if one has typed the name of the book, or of its author, incorrectly); the search engine on Wikipedia is at present one of the worst of its kind."
--BF 15:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You did, indeed, say that as evidenced by the our conversation on the subject. However, I think it's prudent to point out two things here:
  • You've already voted once. We know you want to keep it, but voting multiple times can be confusing to readers.
  • The situation to which you refer would be best remedied by the use of disambiguation pages redirect pages. For example, say someone searches for one of the incorrect transliterations you pointed out above. There's a solid chance they won't find your list altogether, or the article they're looking for. By creating disambiguation redirect pages for these variants, you can redirect them to the proper page. The list in question wouldn't be able to help you in that regard. Sidatio 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you have a good point, BF, but wonder if the categories wouldn't address that in the same way. It seems just as convenient to me to glance over Category:Iranian women as it is to glance down the list. --Moonriddengirl 16:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, my apologies for multiple voting (I was certain that it would be noticed). Secondly, what you (i.e. Moonriddengirl) are suggesting would indeed have fulfilled the task of the List under consideration were it not for the fact that that is not the way a typical user of Wikipedia approaches things; one clicks on a category only when one is reading, or has already read, an entry; for instance, one clicks on Category:Iranian women while reading, or after having read, the entry on, for instance, Forough Farrokhzad. Furthermore, not everyone who comes to Wikipedia is technically minded; people type a name and they leave for a different source, it at all, as soon as they have been redirected to the search page. You could of course argue that such individuals are also most likely exactly those who would not try such thing as "List of Iranian Women" (please note that I am using "Iranian Women" here as an example; I know for instance three Russian brothers whose names are entirely different in English, all thanks to the difficulty of transliterating names from one language to another); you may be right in a very general sense, but in any system design one must allow for some redundancy in order for the system to function in all kinds of circumstances that one cannot foresee beforehand --- humans are very similar, but their thought precesses are very different and this should be accounted for in Wikipedia. Be it as it may, personally I have found the List very useful mainly because of this difficulty of transliteration. Lastly, the disambiguation pages have almost never proved useful to me in the present context. I hope that this will be my last message on this page. --BF 18:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I meant redirect pages. Sorry for the confusion. Also, I took the liberty of striking out the second vote and adding Comment, which is more appropriate. The redirect function would definitely do what you're wanting, and would work in conjunction with the categories as a redundancy measure, and all autonomously so that you and other individuals interested in Iranian subjects can spend more time creating those articles and working on the issues of transliteration. Sorry for the confusion! I'll strike out my erroneous comment and replace it above.
I may be misunderstanding something, but alternatives such as "Cambridge University" and "University of Cambridge" belong to an entirely different category of problems (please think about it, since this is not a casual remark), leaving aside the fact that such alternatives are both highly predictable and restricted in number. I can think of about 20 equivalent but different ways in which Forough Farrokhzad can be transliterated, and this only because I know both the original name and the underlying languages; for a typical user of Wikipedia the number of alternatives is considerably larger. In this light, I hope that you are not saying that for some mysterious reason writing several thousand redirections are preferable to you than maintaining a list containing less than hundred names. Lastly, I must be frank with you and express the fact that I consider your direct reference to me "and other individuals interested in Iranian subjects" as highly patronising --- you should know better, that I at least am not specialising in "Iranian subjects" and even if I was, I am not here as a representative of some individual, group or nation; why do you believe that you can categorize people like this? I am just advocating something which I happen to have found useful through my experience and not through my specific interests, whatever they may be! Please ponder on this, in view of the fact that we are communicating through a medium where words count for everything (there are no voices and no visual impressions, only words). I have sometimes the feeling that perhaps Iranians are considered as intruders on En.Wikipedia (if you read your sentence, then you will know what I mean; your sentence contains a biting element, which is unmistakably there and which you may not have meant to say). This is truly my last time on this page. --BF 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why? You're bringing up valid points. First off, though, I can understand the patronization remark if I had referred to you and the unnamed others as "esteemed" or "experts". I mean, let's face it - it's pretty clear by now that you have an interest in the topic of Iranian women, do you not? Id think it's a reasonable conclusion that anyone else who puts as much time and effort into Iranian articles would share the same interest. But I digress.
Anyway, in the case of two similar topics that are completely different, as you mentioned above, then yes, a disambiguation page would be the ticket. If used in conjunction with redirect pages for multiple transliterations, the probability of an individual ending up on the "wrong" page is quite low. Throwing a list in there when the topics already have multiple categories (a category for Iranian women, Iranian women by occupation, etc.) just wouldn't be necessary in my view.
If you took my comments above as somehow insulting, I apologize. That certainly wasn't the intention - I merely intended to respond to your concerns. Sidatio 20:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This category exists only as a container category for other categories of women. Articles on individual women should not be added directly to this category, but may be added to an appropriate sub-category if it exists.
Please note that categorisation by gender is acceptable in wikipedia only in limited circumstances which are set out in Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. New categories by gender may be deleted if they do not meet the tests set out in that guideline.

Kappa 11:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally, I prefer categories by occupation & gender, but I do think that the argument for ambiguity to Western readers in Iranian names is applicable to general category and makes a adding women directly here far more useful to many users of the English Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl 12:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how anyone would find it useful in telling male from female names, they would be looking in the lead of the article for that, not in the cats at the bottom. 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I've never seen the date and time stamp without a name. :) It's useful in this fashion: Categories can be accessed directly or from another page. If you are researching Iranian women in politics, for instance, and read the page on Goli Ameri, you can follow the category link to Category:Iranian women in politics to see a list of other Iranian women in politics. --Moonriddengirl 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, too many squiggles ~~~~~. I'm asking about the people who are right there in Category:Iranian women rather than in subcats like Iranian women in politics. It produces an alphabetical list of all notable Iranian women, and that doesn't really seem very useful, certainly less informative than this list which explains who did what. Kappa 21:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't so much the list's usefulness, as it is its maintainability - besides the usual issues that go with WP:USEFUL. Sidatio 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK if any wants to explain the purpose of having people directly in the cat I've asked over at Category_talk:Iranian_women. I notice that Category:Indian women is nice and empty. Kappa 02:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In my view, an argument could be made to keep the category "as-is" in light of how women are treated in the Iranian and Indian cultures (among others) - because women have the proverbial deck stacked against them, I would consider that gender has specific relation to the topic. That's just my take, though. If challenged, the women on this list are already subcategorized by occupation and would be found in their relevant categories.
To me (and to several others, apparently), the list as it is really isn't maintainable. However, if there were other lists created like List of Iranian women writers or List of Iranian female singers that conformed to guidelines, I'd hardly see that as objectionable. Lists like those would definitely be easier to maintain. Sidatio 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This thing already contains a sublist of authors and poets, you are saying it would be easier to maintain that separately? Kappa 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I was referring to was your suggestion that the list be broken down into smaller, more maintainable lists. Even if sublisted, the article itself would almost certainly become unmaintainable. I can see separate, smaller lists - by occupation, time period, etc. - being easier to maintain, but sublists? It seems to me that would add even more to maintain! Sidatio 13:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That list you mentioned could probably use a review itself, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Sidatio 13:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My question is, why can't we just take this list, which is already divided into sections like "authors and poets", and "politicians", and copy/paste them to make the separate smaller lists? Kappa 13:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THERE we go. I have to have it dumbed down for me in the mornings. ;-) Sure, I'm all for that. It seems those lists would be far more maintainable, and would be of much more use to individuals researching work on these notable women. I'll be happy to help out with that this weekend. Any objections? Sidatio 14:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I feel (assuming we have this kind of list at all) that Activists and Artists should be split off now and the others could stay there until they get longer. I must give this more thought. Kappa 14:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I think you're on to something here. A short list isn't necessarily a bad thing, and most of these lists would have enough names to be justifiable - except for maybe Iranian women athletes. This would probably end up being the shortest list to come out of this proposed compromise, as the two Nobel laureates could easily be merged into different lists based on their occupations. Still, I wouldn't be opposed to its creation, once more notable women athletes from Iran got their Wikidue. Further, the lists could actually have proper lead paragraphs, and their newfound maintainability would allow for better descriptions to be written about each person and their claim to notability. Also, having a smaller list would, in my opinion, foster research into the relevant topic and could result in more notable Iranian women in a given category being unearthed and represented properly. Finally, these lists would have proper inclusion criteria, instead of being about just any notable Iranian woman.
It's a solid idea, and one that could be implemented at any time since the entries on this list are already categorized. Sidatio 14:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what objection to this list do you have that doesn't apply even more so to list of Iranians? Kappa 02:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None. I was glad to see that List of American women is a redlink. But List of Americans? How about List of humans? --Evb-wiki 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I bet this somewhat overlaps with List of famous Persian women. Oh, I see now it's a redirect. --Evb-wiki 02:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that list existed, but that's even MORE open-ended. Sidatio 10:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly strong delete. Totally, totally unnecessary for Wikipedia. Are there lists of women of other nationalities? (Please don't try to create these as it'd warrant the existence of lists of men and women from each country, which would be a huge unsourced unmaintainable burden.) Doesn't serve any purpose per WP:LIST, totally indiscriminate collection of information. I can't believe people are actually voting to keep this.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re categories--as Kappa notes above, the Category:Indian women film actors was deleted, and so was the Category:Indian women artists. I'm certain some categories by occupation will stand per policy, but there are others--like authors, for one--that probably will not. While personally I believe the policy needs to be overhauled, since I think that a category of Indian women artists is more useful and maintainable than a list of them, this isn't the place for that. I'll just say that if the consensus is that this list is inappropriate, Kappa's recommendation of making smaller lists seems like the best solution consistent with current policy for topics like artists, authors, directors and that sort of thing. --Moonriddengirl 11:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More