A Shanty No Lemon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Please allow the posting of this Columbus Podcast, I have received several outside sources, including a link from the Columbus Alive Newspaper. http://www.columbusalive.com/?sec=services&story=alive/2007/0208/l-lunch.html to indicate that this is a valid piece of information. Further information can be written to this page to indicate it's authenticity. Ironhide1975 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. The problem is that WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial sources - something simply existing isn't enough. That source is trivial (it's just a short blurb in a list), and it's only one (one isn't multiple). This article was deleted four times at A shanty no lemon, as well. None of the articles asserted any notability, and simply listed the content on the podcast if they weren't one-line articles saying "it's a podcast". --Coredesat 23:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Coredesat said exactly what I would have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a podcast directory, please try a site that is. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per above. Doczilla 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|CfD)

The decision to delete the category "women writers" should be reviewed: i) the discussion was not complete; ii) it is a useful category for many editors and users; and iii) "women writers" is widely recognized as a distinct category in publishing and literary studies. There are good arguments for reinstatement on the category talk page, as well as here. scribblingwoman 14:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's note: the deletion debate showed a clear consensus. "The discussion was not complete" is false; the idea that it's WP:USEFUL is not an argument. NOTE that Scribblingwoman has extensively and one-sidedly WP:CANVASsed this discussion among the keep-commenters and people interested in the subject. I have notified all people involved in the earlier debate that she had not notified (i.e. those in favor of deletion). Other than that I have no particular opinion on the subject. >Radiant< 10:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: discussion of the above notice can be found on the talk page. scribblingwoman (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reinstate Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality is clear that categorization by gender is appropriate, and this situation meets all tests. A head article has been written at Women's writing in English. A Musing (formerly Sam) 15:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per the guideline saying it's allowed, with the aforementioned head article. But if consensus is to delete again, then don't come back here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amarkov (talk • contribs). [1]
• Um. That looks like a thoughtful debate, the issue of writers closely identified with women's issues is addressed by the (retained) Category:Feminist writers and both Category:Men writers and Category:Women writers did indeed seem to be underpopulated per Category:Writers, so unless we can identify a credible reason for this subcategorisation which is not addressed by a more maintainable genre-specific category I am strongly minded to endorse. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category has little to do with the politics of particular writers (whether or not they are feminist, or anything else), but is more concerned with their position as women. In addition, "feminist" is a pretty recent category (lots of debate but I would argue it can reasonably be used by the end of the eighteenth century) while women have been writing for centuries. And whether or not a writer is "identified with women's issues" is tricky. Arguably, any issue is a "woman's issue" as long as a woman is interested in it. So I would argue that "feminist writers" is a fairly specific category reserved for writers explicitly engaged in writing about women's rights/oppression/emancipation/situation/etc., whereas "women writers" is a broader category which allows us to look at women within literary history as a class of writers. Anyway, to a large extent the point is moot as "women writers" exist far and wide as a recognized category and so whatever individuals may feel about it, we surly must follow suit here. scribblingwoman 16:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure about the underpopulation of the category - before it was deleted, it was much more heavily populated. A Musing (formerly Sam) 16:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much better populated: I had initiated twenty-four myself. But there was a pretty thorough culling via bot. scribblingwoman 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. While the discussion which resulted in its deletion was not thoughtless, it didn't involve many of the editors and users who did find the category useful. Since that time, a head article has been written, and my impression is that this illustrates some serious wikipedian interest in maintaining Category:Women writers, despite its potential size. And I agree that Category:Feminist writers doesn't quite seem to meet the need: being a feminist writer is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for being a woman writer. Dsp13 16:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum: There is a marvellous article on Women artists which demonstrates the viability of gendered categories and artistic production. scribblingwoman 17:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reinstate. Especially in my area of interest (science fiction and fantasy) there is much room for discussion of the roles of women writers in the genre, the number of women writers who used gender-neutral real or pen names in the "Golden Age" (C. L. Moore, Leigh Brackett, Andre Norton), and the impact of a large number of women entering the field in the 1960s and '70s. A category for women writers would be useful to students of this topic. - PKM 17:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely Reinstate, as per scribblingwoman's comments. This is an important and quickly growing field in academia and the history of literature; to ignore its importance here on Wikipedia would be a shame. María: (habla conmigo) 18:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Do Aphra Behn, Jane Austen, and Charlotte Bronte have something in common, other than just being dead, white English-language novelists? I'm thinking yes. Do they belong in Category:Feminist writers perhaps? Probably not (although Aphra Behn is categorised as a feminist, but let that slide). JzG is right that this was a broad debate as CFD goes, and a serious one, but revisiting the subject won't hurt. The arguments against are strong: Barbara Cartland and Jacqueline Susann would go in the same category. Perhaps there's a compromise out there that would resolve all the concerns. Worth another try anyway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. The question that needs to be answered for me is whether this category is about "Women's writing" or "Writers who are women". If it is the latter, then the category should remain deleted. If it is the former, then there should be clear criteria for which women writers are included and which are not. Perhaps a better name is needed. I am skeptical of the idea that this category should contain all women writers. Quoting from Women's writing in English:
  The question of whether or not there is a "women's tradition" remains vexed; some scholars and editors refer to a "women's canon" and women's "literary lineage," and seek to "identify the recurring themes and to trace the evolutionary and interconnecting patterns" in women's writing, but the range of women's writing across time and place is so considerable that it is inaccurate to speak of "women's writing" in a universal sense: Claire Buck calls "women's writing" an "unstable category." Further, women writers cannot be considered apart from their male contemporaries and the larger literary tradition. Recent scholarship on race, class, and sexuality in literature further complicate the issue and mitigate against the impulse to posit one "women's tradition."
  If this is, as Claire Buck says, "an unstable category" then we should not have it as a category at wikipedia. Unstable categories imply that membership is unclear, and needs explanation. If so, the subject would be much better served with a list. In short what I'm saying is if the category includes all women writers it should probably remain deleted. If it includes just some, it should be a list. -- Samuel Wantman 19:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My sense is that many university courses on 'women's writing' start from identifying, extensionally, the category with 'writers who are women'. That this can be called an 'unstable category' means not that this is an extensionally unstable category (i.e. that membership is unclear) but that it is intensionally unstable (i.e. that its connotation, implication etc. vary - e.g. over time & place, with race & class, with literary genre and so on.) This sort of instability isn't an argument against making the category the object of academic study, and I don't feel it need be an argument against having the wikipedia category. Dsp13 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are you saying that the category should contain ALL women writers, and that is what is meant academically when studying "women's writing"? If so, I'll change my opinion. -- Samuel Wantman 23:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. (Of course, different academic courses will differ in the selection of material they take as representative of the category for the purposes of study - but I don't think that's a fact about the category itself.) Dsp13 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. I'm convinced that this is worth discussing more. Relist -- Samuel Wantman 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reinstate I had found it a particularly useful category to work on. And never figured why an argument for deletion was being "overpopulated"! User:Dimadick
• Keep deleted There was a legitimate debate, and the main reason for rejecting the outcome seems to be simply that some people don't like it. AshbyJnr 10:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted There was a legitimate debate, for nearly 11 days. The fact that "many of the editors and users who did find the category useful" (including you, A Musing (formerly Sam), Guy, Dsp13, PKM, María, and Angus McLellan) chose to ignore the CfD during its run is immaterial. That category deserves the same fate that Category:Men writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|CfD) got - any other treatment would be sexist. Also, I object to the canvassing.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is inflammatory language. Editors did not "choose" to ignore the debate; they were not informed it was taking place. And the idea that recognizing legitimate differences between groups of people is "sexist" (or racist, or heterosexist, or anything else) is misguided, and in fact can contribute to the very sexism (or racism, or heterosexism, or anything else) that this editor wants to avoid, by sweeping differences under the rug. "Equal" means "entitled to fair and equal treatment," not "exactly the same as." Anyway, I really think the point is immaterial for the purposes of this argument, because like it or not, "women's writing" as a category already exists in the wider world. It is the job of Wikipedia, it seems to me, to reflect that fact, neutrally and fairly. scribblingwoman 12:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category was tagged and listed in the usual way, so those who have an interest in keeping this category have no one to blame but themselves for not participating. Doubtless many additional editors who would have favoured deletion also did not take part. Piccadilly 12:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • From Wikipedia:Categories for discussion:
        "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator, any main contributors of the category and the relevant wikiprojects that you are nominating the category. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the category. Please indicate in your nomination who has been notified, so that if you fail to notify the creator, contributors, and relevant wikiprojects, someone else can do so."
        scribblingwoman 13:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff, WP:CATGRS suggests that gender asymmetries in categories - such as that which would pertain if Category:Women writers existed and Category:Men writers didn't - should sometimes be allowed (the example there is Category:female heads of government), and not denied a priori as sexist. In this case, the asymmetry results from the fact that historically women writers have been a fairly self-conscious minority, and is visible today in the larger number of academic courses devoting themselves to literature by women than those devoting themselves to literature by men. I'd have no objection to having a men writers category if there were sufficient interest in properly maintaining it (here I should perhaps confess a bias - I'm a male writer myself!) - but when both categories existed it's a fact that the women writers category was much more satisfactorily populated. Dsp13 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Restoration would suggest Wikipedia is biased towards a feminist agenda, thus compounding the problem that it is perceived to have a liberal bias. This perception is in danger of becoming self-perpetuating by discouraging non-liberals from contributing, thus making the goal of neutrality unattainable. Honbicot 11:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion If fully populated this category would probably contain a five figure tally of articles, and most of them would be about journalists and so on and of no use in discussing women's writing, or would be feeble stubs, and of no use for that reason. The alternative is subcategorisation, but that would be extremely unwelcome because some people would be in half a dozen of the subcategories, or even a dozen. In any case, one can find women writers from most parts of the world easily enough by browsing through the existing subcategories. Piccadilly 12:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholars have been interested in women 'journalists and so on' since the time of the C19th periodical press. That a category contains feeble stubs is no argument against the category, but against the stubs themselves. But I totally agree that there's a serious general problem about large categories versus combinatorially proliferating subcategories. Dsp13 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, deletion was proper. Votestacking to drown out a discussion is never helpful. >Radiant< 13:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - This deletion had clear consensus. About 15 people endorsed deletion/merging, while only 3 people wanted to keep the category. The number of people involved in this debate was larger than the typical WP:CFD debate, which suggests the category was thoroughly reviewed. The nomination was open for over a week, which should have provided ample opportunity for feedback. I can only conclude that the deletion was appropriate. In fact, keeping the category after the WP:CFD discussion would have been disruptive. This review should have never been initiated; the category should stay deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Setting aside the WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL arguments, no valid reason to overturn has been raised. The discussion lasted for the 11 days, far, far more than the required 7 days. After 11 days, with consensus overwhelmingly in favour of deletion, any contention that the discussion was incomplete is nonsense. It is the responsibility of editors to watchlist those articles/categories/templates/images that interest them, it is not the responsibility of others to search them out when something affecting them comes up—editors have no rights of ownership, physically or morally. This CfD is not flawed by virtue of the fact that certain editors have emerged after the event with objections to the deletion. The CfD followed standard practice and consensus was overwhelmingly achieved. Xdamr^talk 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of "wikilawyering," I quote the following from Wikipedia:Consensus:
    Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.
    I would argue that the discussion has now achieved such wider attention, and that arguments that the consensus was originally reached should only be credited so far. There was also a discussion on July 18 2006 and the result was "no consensus." By the same logic, should that not have been allowed to stand? If the current request for reevaluation is illegitimate, then was not the previous one as well? scribblingwoman 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that since deletion a new head article, Women's writing in English was written, addressing a major substantive point raised in the CfD discussion (that one of the requirements for gender based categories was that a head article could be written about the subject). Thus, there are new facts being presented for discussion. Note also that the level of interest in this arises from the fact that in drafting that article, input was sought from a variety of quarters (authors of relevant lists and articles, literary wikiprojects), and input was received. Isn't that the kind of collaborative and substantive response appropriate to Wikipedia, and doesn't that present a new and valid reason to overturn? A Musing (formerly Sam) 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, the CFD was completely proper and no relevant reason has been given to overturn it, just a disagreement with the result. On the merits, the grouping of all women ever who were writers in any capacity is meaninglessly broad, because chances are that the individuals included—and their writing—will have nothing in common. Obviously there are specific cultural groupings of women writers that are academically significant, but this is a matter for articles (or targeted lists) to discuss and develop. Postdlf 14:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep category Here are some "relevant" reasons to keep the category.
  1. Restoration would suggest Wikipedia is biased towards a feminist agenda, thus compounding the problem that it is perceived to have a liberal bias. - Discussing women writers because they are women is not the same as discussing them from a feminist perspective. One of the reasons that figures such as Hannah More, Sarah Trimmer and Anna Laetitia Barbauld are just now getting attention is that scholars like Margaret Ezell criticized feminists for only recovering historical women like themselves. There is no way that these women could be classified as "feminist writers," they can only be classified as "women writers."
  2. I also had no idea this debate was going on at the time nor would I really have known how to participate in it (I have only been participating here regularly since December), but I would have joined had I known. Two FAs that I have written deserve the category "woman writer," Mary Wollstonecraft and Anna Laetitia Barbauld. The works of those two writers are often included in university surveys of women's writing of the eighteenth century, for example.
  3. Over 700 instutions around the world (at least) offer degrees in women's studies or gender studies (see http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/programs.html), including, for what it's worth, every Ivy League university. There are professors holding chairs in this field all over the country and teaching courses in it. If all of these universities feel that it is useful to have degrees in this subject, why can't wikipedia have the category?
  4. Just a quick glance at almost any university's English department will reveal at least one course on literature by women (Michigan, for example - they may have more, but it's hard to tell from their catalogue).
  5. The University Press of Kentucky publishes a series entitled "Eighteenth-century Novels by Women."
  6. There is a well-respected academic journal called Women's Writing which "publishes articles to serve as a forum for dialogue, discussion, and debate about the work of women writing from the Elizabethan to the Victorian period." That is just one of the many journals dedicated to women writers.
  7. There are 6335 entries in the MLA database (the database for literature articles and books) listed under the category "women writers." Note, they have the category.
  8. On the point about it being a huge category, that is a problem, but perhaps someday we will be able to combine categories and search for eighteenth-century writer and woman writer, for example. That is the ideal situation, is it not?

  I claim WP:ATT. The reliable sources say, "women writers" is a legitimate category. Awadewit 15:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, you've just proven that "women writers" is a legitimate field of study, which we already knew and which is why we have several articles on the subject. All of that has nothing to do with the existence of a category that contains all authors that happen to be female, which is what the debate here is about. Just because it makes a good article doesn't mean it's a viable categorization scheme. >Radiant< 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order to study in the field, articles, lists, and categories are all useful. Yes, it could potentially be a large category, and all kinds of sub-categories suggest themselves (egs. "19thc African American women writers"; "Early-modern European women writers"). But sub-categories would be sub-sets of the category "women writers," would they not, which in turn is a sub-category of "writers"? And sub-categories would not always answer, anyway. "Women's writing" is a field in itself, broad and unwieldy as it may be. scribblingwoman 16:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Women writers" is a viable category for the MLA database (the most reputable database for articles and books in literary studies), as I pointed out, and as scribblingwoman pointed out on the talk page about this debate, it is also a category in the classification scheme of the Library of Congress [[2]]. But of course who cares what the MLA (Modern Language Association) or the Library of Congress thinks? They know nothing about either literature or classification (sarcasm). Moreover, I did not argue "this would be a good article," I said this is legitimate field of study, meaning this is a category of writers recognized within academia. If you recognize it as a field of study, you must recognize it as a category. Also, I might mention that just because something "reached consensus" does not mean it reached the right consensus. Majorities can be wrong (might - in this case numbers - does not make right). I would also reiterate the point above that "women writers" have specifically been made a category of interest because of their place in history - they have been discouraged from publishing and reviled for publishing. That is why they are distinguished from men. Many early women had to overcome great obstacles to publish and could not publish works with their names on them or were called whores for publishing (Aphra Behn and Eliza Heywood are good examples). To refuse to recognize this tradition would not make wikipedia "neutral," as some claim, it would make it more conservative than conservapedia [3], because it would be erasing that tradition. Awadewit 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Articles on the history of women in writing in different cultures, countries, and periods is how Wikipedia should "recognize this tradition"—this category accomplishes no such thing. Instead, the category papers over all traditions by dumping those who "had to overcome great obstacles" in with those who didn't. Postdlf 16:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • But I was under the impression that wikipedia categories could not be overly specific such as "eighteenth-century African-American women writers." By the way, I see the biggest problem here to be wikipedia's programming. Currently you cannot combine requests for "women writers," "African-American-writers" and "eighteenth-century writers." That is what would make the categories the most useful. I understand that this is a terribly difficult problem, but eliminating categories that will one day be useful when this can be done is not the solution. Awadewit 17:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The discussion had gone on for eleven days, more than many CfDs, and clearly had consensus to delete. The category is broad to the point of uselessness. It would have thousands, potentially millions of members. And imagine how big Category:Men writers would be. Doczilla 16:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/reverse deletion. I find the arguments of the proponents of the category far more substantial than those of the opponents. Isn't the decision supposed to be based on the quality of the arguments advanced, not the quantity of votes? In terms of quality, I think the ties to MLA and other well-established academic structures are far more compelling than Wikipedia's current inability to deal elegantly with large categories. The idea that to reinstate would show some sort of liberal bias I find particularly misguided. --ScottMainwaring 16:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reverse deletion, for the reasons scribbling woman and dsp13 stated above. This is a distinct field of study and not just a category that includes all female writers. In the meantime, a main article about this topic has been written at Women's writing in English.--DorisH 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion It is just a category that includes all women writers, and there is no reason to have a category for women writers but not for male writers, when barriers to women becoming writers have been low for generations and are now non-existent. The academics who focus on women writers make no pretence of being neutral; the whole field of study is about politically motivated advocacy. But in Wikipedia neutrality is fundamental. Choalbaton 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be that as it may (although I strongly disagree about your "non-existent" claim), the history of women writers and their struggles, which is something that will be represented in this category, is certainly noteworthy. There is no field of study for men's writing because a gross majority of what was historically published was written by men; therefore, there should be (and, academically speaking, is) emphasis put on women's writing because of its historical rareness. Surely that should say something. In closing, academics do not only focus on current women writers or contemporary women's literature, and I think people are greatly overlooking the historical impact. María: (habla conmigo) 19:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that Choalbaton does not get to judge the academics. Wikipedia must reflect the current scholarship. If Choalbaton wants to challenge the academics' supposed non-neutrality, he or she must become one. And, by the way, I already listed one scholar, a feminist herself, who criticized other scholars for the way they were doing feminist scholarship - Margaret Ezell. You are acting as if all scholars who write on women do so from the same perspective. That is ignorant, as I have demonstrated. To go on, wikipedia has articles about women from the past who were discrimated against, so the category is especially relevant to them. Moreover, in many parts of the world today, women writers do not have the same opportunities as men. You might think about places like Saudi Arabia.
    Some helpful information. "Contemporary critic Elaine Showalter has drawn attention to the conflict, repression, and even decline suffered by many women writers during the early twentieth century. According to Showalter and other scholars, the years following the end of World War I were difficult for female novelists and poets in particular, who were regarded as writers of little substance. Yearning to write about serious issues facing their times but pushed to the periphery, poets such as Teasdale, H. D., Lowell, and Edna St. Vincent Millay were unable to find suitable literary models in past female poets. Additionally, the notion of poetry as an art form that transcends personal and emotional experience, a view expounded by male poets such as Eliot and Pound, led many female poets to feel that their work was being marginalized. Faced with stiff reaction against the type of personal and lyrical poetry many of them wanted to write, Millay and others found it increasingly difficult to continue writing. Some female writers curtailed their creative work and turned their energies to political causes instead, using alternate means such as journalism and reporting to express their opinions." [4]
    You might also think about reading about the recent history of Iran. The struggle for women's rights there, including the right for a woman to publish is very recent - 1970s and forward. Awadewit 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting a Iranian poet in the same category as a few thousand American journalists is not an effective way to address that issue. ReeseM 00:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The comments immediately below were interwoven in User:Awadewit's comment above. They have been moved here to restore the attribution and chronology of the original comments.
      • I do, and I will continue to do so. It is insufferably arrogant for academics to say that no-one else may criticise them. This is the attitude to politics taken by dictators. It is the way that free speech is oppressed and tired orthodoxies are maintained by self-serving elites. To quote Dr Johnson, ""You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables." Choalbaton 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point, which you seem to have missed, is that wikipedia is not a platform for your personal opinions. Wikipedia's articles and categories must reflect the published scholarship on an issue, such as women writers. Even if you do not agree with the published scholarship, you must adhere to it. That is why I said, since you do not agree, you should become an academic and publish something so that you can dispute the views you disagree with in the proper venue. Wikipedia is not the place to do original research. Furthermore, your efforts to suppress the scholarly consensus, that is remove a legitimate category from wikipedia that is recognized by almost all of the major scholarly institutions and libraries across the world is closer to the definition of censorship than anything I am proposing. Awadewit 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understood you perfectly well, and your renewed attack only confirms that. You seem to think we are debating women's studies, but we are actually debating Wikipedia categorisation. My personal opinions on women's studies aren't relevant, and neither are yours, but my personal opinions on Wikipedia categorisation are relevant. Choalbaton 03:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• reinstate - I don't see a problem with this category, it has a few articles in it and several valid sub-categories. Kc4 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The deletion was conducted with the utmost propriety and there are many reasons why this is an undesirable category, as has already been explained. ReeseM 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many reasons"? What impeccable logic. And I thought that the reason for the review was to actually, seriously review the decision, meaning have a debate, not say "we already agreed to delete it before, so why have a discussion?" Awadewit 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly a large part of the purpose of this page is procedural, and indeed much of the original argument for reinstatement was based on procedural claims - spurious procedural claims. Secondly, some people are paid to talk, talk, talk, but others have real lives to lead and limited time. When many good points have been made already, there is no need to waste time on saying the same thing in different words. ReeseM 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But we can have no way of knowing which reasons you support. That is why you have to say which ones you agree with, even if it is only to reiterate them in a quick summary. Awadewit 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no need for personal attacks, ReeseM. And it would be nice if you, and some others, would engage with the points being made here. Re. your comment above about putting "a Iranian poet in the same category as a few thousand American journalists," now that is spurious. I would be the last person to deny that there is a Eurocentric bias in literary studies, but surely dumping the whole thing is not the best response? And journalists, while of course writers, are not generally the study of literary scholars so your scenario is hardly likely to materialize. The unanswered point remains: consensus is not immutable; the situation has shifted and so needs to be reassessed. Procedural grounds cannot be the only grounds for reconsidering decisions; that is clear in Wikipedia policy. Whether or not the original discussion was flawed or not, this one does not display the same consensus. So let's move on and address the current debate. scribblingwoman 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would like to reiterate one of scribblingwoman's points. It is not wikipedia's job to fix the problems with the category; wikipedia should merely to reflect the category's existence in institutions, literature and scholarship. Awadewit 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is Wikipedia's job to have categories that are right for Wikipedia. None of the sources referred to above cover the same breadth of material as Wikipedia, so they are not so liable to generate a vast diversity of categories which clutter up the bottom of articles. For that matter, do any of them use categories in a bottom-up way at all? Hawkestone 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Library of Congress has more information than wikipedia; it has 29 million books and 58 million manuscripts. It has 33,000 newspapers, 500,000 microfilm reels, 6,000 comic books, etc. Wikipedia, I am sorry to say, has only a mere 1.6 million articles. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "bottom-up," but the LOC system works by categorizing first broadly and then more narrowly. Check an online catalog to see what I mean. Awadewit 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The arguments about the degree to which women's studies are covered at universities overlook what the category system is for. It is not a systhesis of knowledge, a database tool, a study guide, or a statement about where Wikipedia's priorities lie. It is simply and only a navigational tool. This category is flawed to the point of uselessness as a navigational tool because it is very broad, yet on the other hand subcategorisation is undesirable due to the number of categories it would generate. There are better ways of accessing articles relevant to this field, such as via related articles, and by browsing the detailed writer categories. It is much easier to find say the articles about female French poets in Category:French poets, that it will ever be to find them here. There are thousands of other categories which might exist, which do not exist because other items from Wikipedia's large toolkit of organisational and navigational devices, such as templates, lists, wikilinks, articles, and the "what links here" button, are more useful in those particular cases. Hawkestone 03:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you not believe that wikipedia will one day find a way to search with these categories? When they do, we will have eliminated a very useful category. Please plan for this contigency. Awadewit 03:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand this argument. Surely the categories need to be consistent. There is a category of female occupations with all sort of subcategories, one of which was women writers. Wikipedia can have "female poker players" and not "women writers"? The argument that a category would be large makes little sense to me; would that not be a sign of its usefulness? Further to the question of consistency, there are categories for women musicians and women artists; how can there not then also be women writers? scribblingwoman 03:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We only have gender categories for a tiny fraction of occupations, and they are intensely controversial. I believe that a good number of them would be deleted if nominated for discussion, but like so many things that probably should be done in wikipedia, from fixing individual spelling mistakes to making major enhancements to the software, these nominations don't all get done expeditiously. In the categorisation field the fact that it is much easier to create a bad category than to get one deleted, produces an inherent tendency to accumulate unhelpful categories, so it is desirable to take a firm line on marginal categories that are submitted for discussion; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion should err on the side of deletion because the mechanics of the wiki err the other way. There is a general presumption against categorisation by gender that commands a wide consensus - women-by-nationality categories get deleted very quickly. I would vote to delete category:Female poker players, and all categories of female musicians except singers. Women have played a much smaller role in art than in literature, but I wouldn't regret seeing the category deleted. The general issues have doubtlessly been thrashed out at length many times over, but the present debate is about one specific category. Given the general presumption against categorisation by gender, the onus is on those who wish to keep this particular category to show how it improves the category system. All the evidence that has been put forward that women's studies exists is irrelevant; everyone knows that already. Hawkestone 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think there is "a general presumption against categorisation by gender." Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality clearly states that
          Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid.
          "Women writers" is recognized -- by the outside world at least -- as "a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" and a head article has been initiated. scribblingwoman 04:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I don't see that those in favour of overturning the decision have engaged with the question of what categories are for, or how and when they work, and when they don't. This one doesn't work. The statement that, "Journalists, while of course writers, are not generally the study of literary scholars so your scenario is hardly likely to materialize," is misguided. A Wikipedia category should contain all the articles that match its title. This category is just not fit for purpose, so something else should be used to achieve the purpose. It is good to see that a "head article" has been created, but the inference that that a "head article" validates the existence of a category is false: probably less than 1% of articles have a matching category. Haddiscoe 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Well, I happen to disagree with much of your characterization of those of us arguing for keep. This is a category that likely will be large and broad and will have many subcategories; it will be useful for those interested in the the substantial scholarship around fundamental questions about women's writing, including women's writing in different societies and cultures. It will be useful to associate and be able to quickly move around categories involving, for example, Al-Khansa, who fits into a particular tradition and culture, and Isabella Whitney, who fits into a different one. However, scholarship comparing and contrasting their experiences is being done and will continue to be done. The argument that a category is not valid because it is a high-level one category would, of course, make the large categories at the top of the pyramid all candidates for deletion. This category was well on its way toward being developed. Underlying this category is the fundamental and much researched question of whether there is an historical distictiveness to women's literature, a question which many scholars answer in the affirmative.
    As to the presence of a head article, it was designed to specifically meet the stated criteria for categories grouping by gender, which include the idea that it must be possible to draft a head-article for such a category. Please see WP:CATGRS. In fact, the advocates of maintaining a category drafted the head article based on first reviewing and responding to both the criticisms raised and the explicit rules governing categories, demonstrating some consideration for the purposes and goals of a Wikipedia category. A Musing (formerly Sam) 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quote from WP:CATGRS: Categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but it must be at least possible to create one. Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources.
      Is "women writers" "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right"? Yes, we have demonstrated that with evidence of degree programs, syllabi, etc.
      Is it possible to write a head article for "women writers"? Yes. It has already been done. Please note that this is not a requirement for a category to exist according to wikipedia's guidelines.
      Has "women writers" "already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources"? Yes. Again, major universities, academic presses, the Library of Congress and the major organization of literature professors recognizes it as such. Awadewit 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. Seems pretty obvious that during the several months that I've been on semi-retirement, we still haven't solved the problem of combination categories. I see no consensus here. That's a real shame, but we should not deny the truth just to make things tidy. --M@rēino 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong overturn deletion, otherwise relist. I was one of those who voted in the CfD discussion to delete this category, and I am very disappointed to see the way that this deletion review was called: blatantly partisan canvassing is very bad behaviour, and the criteria listed in the initial claim for review come nowhere near the criteria for a review. On those grounds, my initial reaction was strongly to uphold the deletion. However, having reviewed the discussion above, I have changed my mind, and strongly support reinstatement, for a number of reasons:
  1. Procedure is important: in big project, such as Wikipedia, procedure is essential to avoid descending into endless unresolved arguments. There comes a point when we have to make decisions; they will not always be right, but they have to be made, and due process allows us to do that. However, sometimes the right procedures can produce bad outcomes, and one of the purposes of a deletion review is to allow reassessment "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion". In this case, it is clear that that it has.
  2. Correct procedure can still produce ill-informed decisions, and this is one of those cases. I often agree with Dr Submillimeter, but in this case I think he is badly mistaken to focus on the fact there were 15 contributors at CFD; many of those contributions (including my own) were terse, and the majority were one-liners. We now have the benefit of a much wider and better-informed set of arguments to keep. Whether or not anyone is persuaded by those arguments, it is perverse not to address them.
  3. While it was wrong to describe the CfD as "incomplete", the CfD discussion was clearly rather cursory. This discussion contains a lot of cogent arguments missing from the CfD, and there is more at Category talk:Women writers. It is a pity that these arguments were not presented at CfD, but I think that Scribblingwoman has a good point when she notes that contributors to the category should have been notified: it may not be a requirement, but it is clear that the debate would have been transformed if we had the input from those who have contributed to this review. (To avoid this situation, I suggest that the guidance to notify category creators should be upgraded to a requirement).
  4. Clear prima facie case for keeping the category. The new head article at Women's writing in English provides a mountain of reasons for regarding the category as encyclopedically important, and there is more at Category talk:Women writers. It's a real pity that many of the contributors to this review have shied away from addressing the substantive case being made, the overwhelming majority of the votes here to "uphold deletion" focus solely on procedure. (If you are one of those folks, please re-read the purpose section at the top of this page.
  5. To my mind, there is one overwhelming persuasive reason to restore this category: scribblingwoman and others have provided mountains of evidence that the category of "women writers" is not just a random intersection, but is a significant and important field of scholarly endeavour, which exists apart from the concept of "feminist writers" (who are already categorised). If wikipedia still aims to be useful as a tool for scholarship, then it should categorise women writers to assist those researching that field.
  6. This is category is clearly not a 'feminist' category: it is a tool to assist in research on the gender of writers, and scholars can use the information to draw what conclusions they see fit. I am very troubled by the contribution from User:Honbicot, who claims that "restoration would suggest Wikipedia is biased towards a feminist agenda". That's a very dangerous argument: the effect of it is to say that because a particular field of scholarship is capable of being approached from a feminist perspective, wikipedia should remove the tools which would assist that area of study. This is straightforward POV censorship; it is akin to removing business-related categories because they assist a capitalist analysis, or deleting military-related categories because they can be used for a militarist viewpoint. It's important to note Awadewit's description of how research on women writers has revelaed flaws in some feminist scholarship: those opposed to a feminist analysis should value the fact that this category assists that sort of critique.

  The bottom line here is that we have very strong evidence that Category:Women writers meets the requirement of Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality that a category such as this should be created "where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". That is the guideline against which this category should be assessed, and it is alarming to see how few opponents of reinstatement/relisting have engaged with that guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems with the deletion discussion and no new evidence presented here. I will also admit that my opinion is influenced by the fact that there has been no challenge to the deletion of the companion Category:Men writers. The arguments presented here for special treatment are uncompelling. Rossami (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Re. process: Some here have raised concerns about canvassing. I am more than willing to discuss the issue, if anyone so wishes, in another forum. I hope, however, that such concerns will not unduly influence anyone reading this discussion, particularly as there has been active, um, "counter-canvassing" (as is probably apparent from reading the discussion), which should calm any worries that the debate is one-sided. Bracing, yes. Heated, even. But not one-sided. I would hate for any actions by one individual (me) to unfavourabley influence a debate that interests many editors other than myself. scribblingwoman 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's certainly possible for such a categorization scheme to be valuable, but a single category for all women writers doesn't really accomplish that — it just creates a big, messy, eyeglazing list that doesn't put people into any kind of useful context. Alternate ways of organizing this type of category (sorted by nationality? sorted thematically? sorted by time period? sorted according to political or social movements that they participated in?) might be worth considering, but a single "Women writers" category that directly includes every woman who ever wrote a book just isn't that helpful. Even university-level women's literature programs don't try to cover the entire history of women's writing in one course — they'll have one course devoted to the likes of Jane Austen and Charlotte Brontë, and a different course devoted to the likes of Kathy Acker and Mary Meigs; a single course that tried to cover Jane Austen and Kathy Acker wouldn't make any sense, because their literary styles, themes and cultural contexts are just too wildly different to be effectively combined into a single topic. So I guess my position is that while I'm in favour of having a categorization tree for women writers, I'm not in favour of just throwing them all into a single women writers category. I'd like to propose that interested parties work on developing a more effective new categorization scheme to cover this top; favour recreation as long as that's on the table. Bearcat 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bearcat, I think that is a rather strange argument for deletion! :) You are of course quite right that sub-categories are needed for this category to be useful (and I took that as implicit in the arguments to keep); but if the parent category "women writers" is deleted, then that will be used at CfD as a persuasive precedent to delete the subcats too. The effect of this review is to decide whether we uphold a decision not to allow writers to be categorised by gender, and if it is upheld, then the category tree you want (and with which I agree) will may not be created, or if it is created and perversely survives CFD, it will be fragmented to the point of inaccessibility by the absence of a parent category. Would you like to reconsider? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify: endorse deletion if it were going to be reconstituted as a single undifferentiated category with no breakdowns, but permit recreation if it's organized in some variation of the way I suggested. I'm not opposed to a women writers classification that's organized in a helpful and comprehensive way. Bearcat 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearcat. Procedurally, how would one do this? I had assumed that if this review is successful and the category is reinstated, it would naturally develop sub-categories; as A Musing and Dsp13 point out, below, there are some already, now orphaned. Is the assumption that subcategories would naturally develop acceptable as far as you are concerned, or would you like to see something more developed being proposed up front? scribblingwoman 18:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just concerned about the "naturally" part; there are a lot of cases on Wikipedia where valuable things don't happen because people just assume that other people will naturally get to it. I don't think we have to have a comprehensive set of subcategories already in place before we recreate this, but I would like to at least know that a few people are actually prepared to take on a project. Bearcat 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I'm one of the ones who is prepared to work on this project of defining some of the subcategories for this project. --Susiebowers 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Interestingly, there are some subcategories already established by culture that I've tracked down and added to the category during this debate (yes, I know, they may be gone shortly, but I wanted to see what was already out there). I agree that a more comprehensive scheme is sensible, though with this category at the top; ideally, it would parallel the broader "writers" category, with subcategories both by nationality and by genre/format (e.g., poets, novelists, etc.). I know that among the crew commenting here are people with interests in different periods, genres and cultures. But I do think we need the large category at the top to build off of. A Musing (formerly Sam) 01:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another currently existing subcategory is Category:Modernist women writers. Dsp13 03:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure The closure was procedurally correct, and the category was not useful. This challenge is partial as there has been no such challenge for Category:Men writers. CalJW 03:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument that many have already made here, several times, is that "women writers" is not just an arbitrary grouping, like, say, "blue-eyed writers," but a meaningful category for understanding significant aspects of literary history and practice. It is not just the other half of "writers," the mirror-complement of "male writers." "Male writers" does not exist in the same way in literary studies (there are masculinity studies and studies of masculinity in literature, but those are something different); there is no such field; there is no such category recognized by the MLA, &c &c. If someone wants to argue for it more power to them, though I can't imagine what arguments they might make. But that would be a separate issue. Where does it say that in order to argue for a particualr category one has to present a whole system, in effect? I think the claim that the supporters of this category must also support a category for male writers is misguided. A more careful reading of many of the points already made would explain why. scribblingwoman 04:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• CalJW, the relevant guideline (WP:CATGRS is explicit that a category for one one gender does not need to be balanced against a category for the opposite gender, so scribblingwoman is correct that the case for a "male writers" category is a separate issue. Would you like to explain your assertion that "the category was not useful" wrt to the case made above which asserts that it is useful? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

scribblingwoman and BrownHairedGirl are correct. Wikipedia doesn't divide categories by gender just for the sake of doing so; we divide categories by gender when that gender subdivision represents a specific and verifiable topic of academic and social study out there in the non-Wikipedia world. In both cases, the validity of the category is not defined by "if that one exists, then this one must, too" or "let's break these down by gender just for the hell of it" — it's defined by whether external sources have already established that the category represents an academically, socially or culturally significant topic. There are entire university programs, for example, devoted to "women's literature"; there aren't, conversely, any such programs devoted to "men's literature". In other words, literature by women has been verifiably established as a specific field of study — but since "men's literature" isn't similarly established as a distinct field of academic study, it would constitute original research on Wikipedia's part to decide that "men writers" was an equally significant grouping. Bearcat 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• RESTORE The arguments and evidence presented above and at Category_Talk:Women writers in favor of restoring the category comply with Wikipedia guidelines on Categorization based on gender, race, and sexuality. This is not an arbitrary category; it reflects an existing category in countless other encyclopedias and institutions. See Wikipedia:no original research. --Susiebowers 16:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I understand the objections raised above. If somehow a category, with a more limiting name, was proposed for women writers that was limited to those writers where their gender made a difference in their writings, then I would be more willing to support that. With the current name, it will simply become a place where every woman writer will be listed and as such, it would not be a defining characteristic. Having poorly defined category names that invite the listing of huge numbers of ordinary people who are only listed for a reason of gender simply will not work. Vegaswikian 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the proposal to reinstate the category includes, it seems to me (as noted by several above), a real interest in developing subcategories for the women writers category. The women writers would thus act as a parent category, and an invaluable navigational tool for researchers of women writers (which is a recognized field of study and category by many, many institutions, literary presses, encyclopaedias, and so on. Also as outlined above). Do you have any thoughts or suggestions in that case? --Susiebowers 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No suggestions since I'm not into this area, I would not know where to begin. My objection at this point is more to the name then the concept for certain classifications of writers unique to women. Leaving the category at the name being discussed here that was deleted would not fix the problem of it being a catch all for every writer who is a woman. Vegaswikian 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For a significant number of those who are uncomfortable with the category the issue seems to be its potential monstrous size. Not an unreasonable concern! It is becoming clear to me that those of us who use this category will need to think in terms of subcategories. Indeed, this has already happened in a very limited way, both in terms of national/regional literatures (Category:Caribbean women writers; Category:Indian women writers), and genre/movement (Category:Modernist women writers) (these latter two are nicely populated). I would suggest that we don't impose any sort of schema, but that we instead follow the interests of editors and create, where warranted, categories consistent with various sub-divisions of literary study already in common usage. The three lists of early-modern women writers are an interesting illustration here. One is of dramatists; one is of poets; one is of novelists. A number of writers appear on two or more of these lists. Rather than "early modern women poets," "early modern women dramatists," and "early-modern women novelists" categories, I would suggest "early modern women writers" (further subdivided to reflect the usual periodization in literary studies: "Renaissance women writers"; "Restoration women writers" &c&c.). There are existing categories for poets, dramatists, and novelists. No doubt this seems baggy and ill-fitting to many, but it is a baggy and ill-fitting system that people in the field have been working with, and fine-tuning, and reconsidering, for decades. My suggestion, then, is that those of us who have been using and will continue to use this category commit to further developing and refining the category tree in a manner consistent with accepted scholarly practice. Perhaps this will reassure some of those who have expressed reservations, that it really is a workable category. scribblingwoman 21:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was created again after it (and The Baseball Channel) were deleted for crystal ball. I think that both Baseball Channel and The Baseball Channel should be locked from editing until an official announcement for this proposed network. Milchama 13:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse recreation/Undelete. I fail to see the problem with this - an MLB channel has been discussed ad nauseum in all the major sports publications as well as the mainstream press, as the NYT link shows. This can be moved to the proper name when one is provided. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Not even due to start broadcasting for another two years, the title may have changed by then and it may be completely different in form by the time it goes live, if it ever does (in two years the idea of scheduled broadcast channels for segmented markets may be entirely obsolete). Guy (Help!) 15:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As mentioned above, I believe both of these article should be locked from editing, as they are bound to be recreated prematurely again. Milchama 15:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Take it to WP:ANI if that happens, and someone will do the needful. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing to do here. The things weren't nominated to be undeleted, and we don't salt preventatively, only after a problem with chronic recreation is shown. -Amarkov moo! 22:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latualatuka_chain_letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

article about extremely popular chain letter was vandalized and deleted unfairly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.39.1 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion, article was nonsense about some chain letters on YouTube. May warrant a speedy close. Note: there is a PROD tag on the deleted article, but the article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G1 and not due to the PROD. --Coredesat 09:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Please forward this endorsement to ten friends to help spread the message that Wikipedia is not for viral marketing. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. No signature, no username... this should be a speedy close.--WaltCip 21:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion a Google News/Google Books search turns up nothing, so this doesn't appear to have the sort of coverage that could lead to it becoming a referenced article. Besides, Wikipedia isn't the place to document chain letters and Myspace/YouTube memes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This page was also listed under the PROD Undeletion request section above. Reviewing the history, I saw that it had been speedy-deleted under case G1 which did not appear to apply since it was not patent nonsense in the very narrow way we use that term here. Not realizing that this discussion had also been opened, I procedurally restored the page and nominated it to AFD. My apologies for the confusion. I think the page is definitely deletable but couldn't find a speedy-deletion case that clearly applied. Rossami (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]