User:Guido den Broeder/Visit – Restored and sent to MfD by deleting admin. – ÷seresin 07:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Guido den Broeder/Visit (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) decided to delete this page per Wikipedia:CSD#U2. It's blatantly obvious that U2 does not apply here, therefore I request speedy overturn of the deletion. — Aitias // discussion 15:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: Garden (talk · contribs) and Fram (talk · contribs) have been informed about this deletion review (cf. [1], [2]). — Aitias // discussion 15:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted; I fail to see how maintaining an interwiki table for a banned user is useful in any way to Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] See also Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wheel Warring over subpages? for additional background. And, Aitias, you might as well add the other subpages to this, too. lifebaka++ 15:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Restore and send to MFD if someone wants it gone, after a proper debate. As for the "pages of banned users" stuff, I have it on good authority that even the "most banned" of users can return someday. rootology/equality 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted - sub-pages for a banned user who is almost certainly permanently gone now. I've no real objection to it being discussed at MFD instead, I just don't think it's really worth the bother. Even if U2 was not the most appropriate choice, common sense suggests it's a defensible action. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Restore and MFD if it's worth the time (and I doubt it is). Guido has reconfirmed that he wanted the pages undeleted. Deletion was procedurally incorrect. But again, I don't think this is worth the drama invested in it. Cool Hand Luke 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Why are Guido's wishes of any relevance? The pages were undeleted after he was unbanned two weeks ago, and he managed to get rebanned since then. I have no real problem with people arguing that the wrong procedure was followed, but I really have a problem with people who feel that the wishes of banned users should have any bearing on what we do here (apart from personal attacks and the like). Fram (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Restore and MFD. We really can't endorse a deletion on the wrong criteria. Do it right.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'll restore the pages and take them to MfD, together with his other subpages. Fram (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Guido den Broeder/Visit – Restored and sent to MfD by deleting admin. – ÷seresin 07:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) decided to delete this page per Wikipedia:CSD#U2. It's blatantly obvious that U2 does not apply here, therefore I request speedy overturn of the deletion. — Aitias // discussion 15:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Garden (talk · contribs) and Fram (talk · contribs) have been informed about this deletion review (cf. [1], [2]). — Aitias // discussion 15:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted; I fail to see how maintaining an interwiki table for a banned user is useful in any way to Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wheel Warring over subpages? for additional background. And, Aitias, you might as well add the other subpages to this, too. lifebaka++ 15:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and send to MFD if someone wants it gone, after a proper debate. As for the "pages of banned users" stuff, I have it on good authority that even the "most banned" of users can return someday. rootology/equality 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - sub-pages for a banned user who is almost certainly permanently gone now. I've no real objection to it being discussed at MFD instead, I just don't think it's really worth the bother. Even if U2 was not the most appropriate choice, common sense suggests it's a defensible action. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and MFD if it's worth the time (and I doubt it is). Guido has reconfirmed that he wanted the pages undeleted. Deletion was procedurally incorrect. But again, I don't think this is worth the drama invested in it. Cool Hand Luke 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are Guido's wishes of any relevance? The pages were undeleted after he was unbanned two weeks ago, and he managed to get rebanned since then. I have no real problem with people arguing that the wrong procedure was followed, but I really have a problem with people who feel that the wishes of banned users should have any bearing on what we do here (apart from personal attacks and the like). Fram (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and MFD. We really can't endorse a deletion on the wrong criteria. Do it right.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restore the pages and take them to MfD, together with his other subpages. Fram (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Fast Folk artists – RELISTED The closing admin agreed to a relisting three days ago. We therefore don't need to be here. – Hiding T 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Fast Folk artists (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) The nominator, TenPoundHammer, nominated this for deletion in August of 2008, and a robust debate about the nature of this association followed. The creator of the category made a strong case for its inclusion, and the result of this CfD was "Keep". TPH then nominated it again for deletion in May 2009 with the thinnest of reasoning and without any notice of the prior CfD, and the category was deleted on the basis of one !vote. Based on the results of the last CfD, there is no consensus to delete this category, and one new !vote ("per nom") in a sham deletion attempt shouldn't have changed that. (when did one vote become consensus, anyway?) I would like to have the category Restored and Repopulated. Chubbles (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as nominator (I had forgotten about the first discussion by the time I instigated the second one, as I often do). I fail to see how this is not performer by performance. Yes, several (but not all) of them got their start performing for Fast Folk. So what? Some launched their career that way, others didn't. It's just not defining, and I don't see how it can be, and none of the arguments from the August 08 discussion has convinced me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] As MrFizyx noted in the first deletion, this refers to a collective of musicians, not merely a trivial intersection of performance places. To quote him, "In an age where most music magazines come with a free CD and indy artists start record labels with ease and offer free downloads, I suppose it is hard to understand what was so unique about this magazine/record label from a quarter century ago. I created this category because these artist were part of an historic community of songwriters." This is more aptly labeled as a scene or subculture rather than a performance site. Chubbles (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Whether or not the nominator is "convinced" by the previous arguments is irrelevant. Editors should respect a recent, well-argued consensus with which they disagree, in the absence of a reasonable belief that the categorization is actively harmful. The alternative is battle by attrition, heading for the disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment - as the only other contributor to this CFD, I still think this category should have been deleted. However, as only two of us commented, perhaps the closing admin should have relisted it for further discussion rather than closing as 'delete'. I think the 'delete' close is justifiable, but given that there's at least one person here who wants the category restored, I'm not sure whether there would still have been a consensus if the discussion had been prolonged. Robofish (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relist- The only delete vote was, and I quote "per nom", which, last I checked, is straight out of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. There is no way it should have been deleted on that thin of grounds. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Do note that WP:AADD is an essay which enjoys limited acceptance and consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] essay or not, "per nom" is a weak argument that should never be used as a basis for deletion (and yes, I'm probably guilty of it myself). At the very least, the CFD should have been relisted for more consensus. One "per nom" vote does not a consensus make, at least to me. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relist A single, badly-reasoned vote is not enough to counter the consensus of a previous extensive discussion. (And the nominator's reasoning should've been more verbose). Side note: apparently the discussions where closed by the same person. Surely they'd find their first close holds more weight if they compare the two? - Mgm\|^(talk) 10:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] If "per nom" is a badly-reasoned vote that should be discounted, we'd never have another admin at RFA. Fact is, CFD does not get a lot of visitors unless we're talking about race, religion, or politics. There are many CFDs that get closed with no opposition and only one or two people that spoke up. I endorse the close, as there was nothing wrong with it. If consensus here is to relist, I'd be ok with that as well, because if Chubbles had joined the discussion, it probably would have pushed it to at least no consensus. That said, I suggest Chubbles assume a little good faith in regards to the nomination and close, and perhaps watchlist categories he is interested in. --Kbdank71 15:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Answer: "Per nom" isn't neccesarily a bad reason, but it is when the nominator used just three words that represent a reason which was shot down in an earlier discussion. - Mgm\|^(talk) 09:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Earlier discussions are not written in stone. Consensus can change. --Kbdank71 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Consensus does not change on one quick-draw deletion vote. It does, however, change when one quick-draw deletion vote deletes something, and the community decides that it doesn't matter anymore, once someone notices and brings it up. The result of this debate seems to be, "yeah, we might have did this wrong, but now that we did it, ain't worth undoing." So since it would be a waste of time to pursue the matter further, I won't do so. Chubbles (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)][reply] Yes, consensus can change, but if an earlier discussion had extensive attention from the community, the consensus can't change on the say so of just one person agreeing with the nomination. Consensus is supposed to be the view of the community (not one or two people) and no reason had been provided to show that a changed consensus was even likely. - Mgm\|^(talk) 08:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Reopen and relist. XfDs other than AfD are frequently closed with little attention, simply because the discussion often get little attention. If we always waited for a healthy showing with these discussions, it could take many weeks for the XfDs to close. So, a lack of opposition is taken to mean that there are no objections. Therefore, in the face of an objection after-the-fact, I believe we should reopen the discussion and relist it, as the discussion might not have properly gathered consensus. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relist I second the objections. Fast Folk Musical Magazine has a valid place in the history of the American folk/singer-songwriter movement, see the Fast Folk wikipedia article. Therefore, a list of artists who contributed is a valid category. This category appears to have been nominated for deletion arbitrarily and possibly without adequate research. Actions like this are the sort of thing that give wikipedia administration a bad reputation. DanTappan (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Just a side note - TenPoundHammer is not an administrator. Chubbles (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] …but I play one on TV. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - nothing procedurally wrong with the close and the closing admin did not misinterpret the discussion. Yes, participation was light but that's not particularly relevant as there is no way to extrapolate from participation what might have happened if more people had participated. I didn't bother !voting on this CFD, for instance, because the outcome seemed so obvious. CFDs have been closed without additional comments beyond the nomination. Complaints about whether editors choose to participate at CFD or not don't constitute significant new information. Otto4711 (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse/relist OK (closer). (1) This is essentially a complaint of "I didn't know about the discussion and would have opposed deletion had I known." That's a valid feeling to have when a category you like gets deleted, but it's not something that I as closer can foresee and therefore not a valid reason to overturn. (2) The previous discussion is irrelevant, except for an indication that more participation/interest in the topic is theoretically possible; (3) therefore, I'm fine with a relisting, but I echo Kbdank71's comments in suggesting that anyone who's concerned about a category add it to their watchlist. It saves the community a whole lot of wiki-drama and going back and forth from CfD to DRV if you just watch what you want to track. It's very easy and lots of folks do it. (4) In my experience, very few proposals or administrative actions to delete categories are done with bad faith motives. I'd like to see a review nomination for a category propose a review without insinuating that there was. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] As the keeper of all things precedential, is it my imagination or does precedent seem to only carry any weight in a close when a prior consensus in a vaguely similar case was delete? Why was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_25#Category:Fast_Folk_artists this prior precedent, where there was a clear consensus for retention of the exact same category nominated by the same nominator, ignored in favor of a one-person "consensus" for deletion, especially as you had closed the original CfD and seen the arguments posed there? What changed that demonstrates that consensus changed with this one vote? Alansohn (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] As you can see from looking at the discussion (and as others have pointed out here, most notably by Occuli, who made what I think is a very good comment below), the previous CfD was not referred to in the discussion. At the time I also didn't recall closing the previous discussion. Ergo, it didn't become an issue. It was neither consciously ignored nor considered. (PS: I didn't know your imagination was "the keeper of all things precedential". Your clause needs an object, there.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] I have long stated that CfD is a game and it looks like we're playing one here. Your devotion to precedent is such that you maintain User:Good_Olfactory/CFD, a laundry list of prior cases in about 100 different classifications in which you catalog results of prior CfDs, laboriously sorting all results to ensure that you can quote them in future discussions. These cases have been referenced on several dozen occasions, almost always presented with the demand that a current case must be decided for deletion based on the prior precedents, regardless of the lack of connection to the prior cases. You have done this on numerous occasions, as have other editors such as User:Otto4711 who berated a supposed "noob" for not adequately studying precedents (here). Yet in this case, not only did the prior precedent never make into your laundry list, not only did you not mention it in considering the result, but you insist that "The previous discussion is irrelevant, except for an indication that more participation/interest in the topic is theoretically possible". While I do appreciate the fact that you now agree with me that any and all precedents can be safely ignored (and I will be sure to quote your opinion where insistence for deletion based on "precedent" is offered), can you explain why a precedent with far greater participation should be ignored for a consensus of only one vote to delete? What rules do we operate under at CfD in which the value of a precedent is either infinite or zero on a completely arbitrary basis? Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] This is a non-issue. Had it been referred to, it would have been considered. It was not, so it was not. As I said, because of the oversight, I've no problem with a re-listing, but it's irrelevant in assessing the procedural soundness of the close. (I would appreciate it if any future questions directed at me as the closer could stay somewhat on the topic of this close. Alansohn mentions a lot of things about me that it sounds like he has gripes about but which are entirely extraneous to the matter at hand.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Let me understand the rules of the CfD game: A precedent is of infinite value if its raised during a CfD or if it's raised by a closing admin who decides to raise it when closing a CfD (especially if it was to delete). However, precedent is worthless if it isn't raised or if the closing admin doesn't recall that he closed the exact same CfD nominated by the exact same editor who has opened such an inordinate number of CfDs that he too can't recall the result of the prior case (especially as it was closed as keep). Now that the precedent has been brought to your intention, doesn't this mean that the one-vote-to-delete close should be overturned and closed as Keep? If that's the case, why not simply overturn your own close instead of relisting? A simple acknowledgment to overturn your close would demonstrate some good faith on your part and, as you have stated, save "the community a whole lot of wiki-drama and going back and forth from CfD to DRV". A tiny dose of consistency that eliminates what appears to be a clear bias to delete regardless of the circumstances would help eliminate much of what you call "wiki-drama". Alansohn (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm not inclined to respond to your inquiry further since your sarcastic tone suggests to me that you are not seeking information in good faith but rather trying to "score points" against other editors. But the short answer is: you're confusing the validity of an administrative action with the results you see as most appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] In general, the rather tattered credibility of all CfD closes is undermined if precedent either must be heeded or can be simply disregarded on an entirely arbitrary basis. There is a rather deep and fundamental problem here with this particular close of a CfD in which the same person nominates a category that was closed as keep previously, there is only a single vote to delete and the same admin who closed before as keep now closes the same CfD as delete with no evidence of consensus, let alone a change thereof. Alleging sarcasm (and none is intended) is a wonderful way to avoid discussion but you have not addressed the fundamental inconsistencies here. The capriciousness that appears to reign supreme at CfD need to be eliminated, and volunteering to overturn the close would demonstrate a small measure of good faith towards dealing with these problems. Feel free to not respond and allow your actions to speak for themselves. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] I appreciate your statement that no sarcasm was intended. Perhaps it's just your way you chose to express yourself and the mentioning of so many extraneous issues that are not on point. I am not volunteering to "overturn the close" partly because there was zero support in the latest discussion for keeping the category. A relist is a far better solution in this case, and one that most other users seem to endorse. Since there a "defective" discussion, it makes sense to have a new one. That's why I endorsed my close but said relisting was OK. I'm certainly not going to volunteer to overturn it simply to assuage your impressions of the CfD system as a whole. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] What, specifically, was "defective" about the CFD? Otto4711 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] There was no debate for the closer to assess.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Have you read the policy regarding consensus? Previous consensus -> Make an edit -> Was the article edited further? -> No? -> New consensus. There doesn't have to be debate to form a new consensus. At the time of the close, it was unanimous. Not sure how that is "defective". --Kbdank71 18:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm of the view that deletion needs a little more than WP:BRD plus WP:SILENCE.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] As a theoretical position to take that is fine, but from a practical standpoint not much would ever get accomplished at CfD if it were thoroughly adopted. Judged in the context of the level of community participation at CfD, there is nothing out of the ordinary about this CfD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Then I'll start to participate at CFD, because I can't endorse closes on that basis. I hear the pragmatism argument but let's do it right.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Excellent. The more the merrier. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Excellent. I can use the company in trying to undo the damage at CfD, but I just have to warn you that there's very little to be merry about in the Bizarro world of CfD. Alansohn (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] And in anycase, if we are going to rely on WP:SILENCE to delete, we should be open to people missing some deadline. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers_by_performance_venue. Some artists have gotten their start on The Tonight Show, but we don't categorise based upon it. - jc37 10:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - per User:Good Olfactory. Procedurerly there is nothing wrong with the closure. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relist Ideally there would have been a link to the last CfD. Given the night-and-day difference between the two discussions, I think a relist is clearly in order. I can't imagine the close or discussion would have been the same if the link had been provided. Hobit (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relist Any concept of consensus is worthless if one individual's vote straight of the "arguments to avoid" list constitutes a community judgment. CfD is a rather poor reflection of what the community as a whole really thinks and operates largely on what seems to be a deliberate effort to keep anyone out who might dare to differ with the deletionist dogma that prevails there. There might well be legitimate arguments for deletion of this category, or consensus might be allowed to change, but there is no way that anyone can look at this and say that the discussion that took place represents community consensus. Alansohn (talk) Relist – having read Fast Folk and both cfds, it seems to me that the deletion argument ('Performer by performance') in the second is incorrect and the analogy of 'artist by record label' is closer (if we restrict the category to those who released recordings with/via Fast Folk). I also think that there should have been a link in the 2nd cfd to the first - it's really not that difficult for a nom to discover previous cfds via 'what links here' and surely one of TenPoundHammer's many otters can be delegated to check these things? Also CGingold seems not to be looking at cfd these days and would surely have picked up on this one (as in the first one). I don't think there was anything wrong with the 2nd cfd or its close; but the 'new info' presented here is the first cfd. Occuli (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relist. MGM put the case quite accurately and succinctly. No substantive arguments in favor of deletion, especially in light of the previous consensus, which should have been given more weight. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relist – I see it as a procedural problem that, in a discussion that drew little participation, no mention was made of the previous CfD, which was clearly noted at Category talk:Fast Folk artists. Is it not standard practice to look at a talk page before nominating something for deletion? It should be. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Fast Folk artists – RELISTED The closing admin agreed to a relisting three days ago. We therefore don't need to be here. – Hiding T 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The nominator, TenPoundHammer, nominated this for deletion in August of 2008, and a robust debate about the nature of this association followed. The creator of the category made a strong case for its inclusion, and the result of this CfD was "Keep". TPH then nominated it again for deletion in May 2009 with the thinnest of reasoning and without any notice of the prior CfD, and the category was deleted on the basis of one !vote. Based on the results of the last CfD, there is no consensus to delete this category, and one new !vote ("per nom") in a sham deletion attempt shouldn't have changed that. (when did one vote become consensus, anyway?) I would like to have the category Restored and Repopulated. Chubbles (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as nominator (I had forgotten about the first discussion by the time I instigated the second one, as I often do). I fail to see how this is not performer by performance. Yes, several (but not all) of them got their start performing for Fast Folk. So what? Some launched their career that way, others didn't. It's just not defining, and I don't see how it can be, and none of the arguments from the August 08 discussion has convinced me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As MrFizyx noted in the first deletion, this refers to a collective of musicians, not merely a trivial intersection of performance places. To quote him, "In an age where most music magazines come with a free CD and indy artists start record labels with ease and offer free downloads, I suppose it is hard to understand what was so unique about this magazine/record label from a quarter century ago. I created this category because these artist were part of an historic community of songwriters." This is more aptly labeled as a scene or subculture rather than a performance site. Chubbles (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not the nominator is "convinced" by the previous arguments is irrelevant. Editors should respect a recent, well-argued consensus with which they disagree, in the absence of a reasonable belief that the categorization is actively harmful. The alternative is battle by attrition, heading for the disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the only other contributor to this CFD, I still think this category should have been deleted. However, as only two of us commented, perhaps the closing admin should have relisted it for further discussion rather than closing as 'delete'. I think the 'delete' close is justifiable, but given that there's at least one person here who wants the category restored, I'm not sure whether there would still have been a consensus if the discussion had been prolonged. Robofish (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist- The only delete vote was, and I quote "per nom", which, last I checked, is straight out of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. There is no way it should have been deleted on that thin of grounds. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do note that WP:AADD is an essay which enjoys limited acceptance and consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - essay or not, "per nom" is a weak argument that should never be used as a basis for deletion (and yes, I'm probably guilty of it myself). At the very least, the CFD should have been relisted for more consensus. One "per nom" vote does not a consensus make, at least to me. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist A single, badly-reasoned vote is not enough to counter the consensus of a previous extensive discussion. (And the nominator's reasoning should've been more verbose). Side note: apparently the discussions where closed by the same person. Surely they'd find their first close holds more weight if they compare the two? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If "per nom" is a badly-reasoned vote that should be discounted, we'd never have another admin at RFA. Fact is, CFD does not get a lot of visitors unless we're talking about race, religion, or politics. There are many CFDs that get closed with no opposition and only one or two people that spoke up. I endorse the close, as there was nothing wrong with it. If consensus here is to relist, I'd be ok with that as well, because if Chubbles had joined the discussion, it probably would have pushed it to at least no consensus. That said, I suggest Chubbles assume a little good faith in regards to the nomination and close, and perhaps watchlist categories he is interested in. --Kbdank71 15:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: "Per nom" isn't neccesarily a bad reason, but it is when the nominator used just three words that represent a reason which was shot down in an earlier discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussions are not written in stone. Consensus can change. --Kbdank71 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus does not change on one quick-draw deletion vote. It does, however, change when one quick-draw deletion vote deletes something, and the community decides that it doesn't matter anymore, once someone notices and brings it up. The result of this debate seems to be, "yeah, we might have did this wrong, but now that we did it, ain't worth undoing." So since it would be a waste of time to pursue the matter further, I won't do so. Chubbles (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Yes, consensus can change, but if an earlier discussion had extensive attention from the community, the consensus can't change on the say so of just one person agreeing with the nomination. Consensus is supposed to be the view of the community (not one or two people) and no reason had been provided to show that a changed consensus was even likely. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen and relist. XfDs other than AfD are frequently closed with little attention, simply because the discussion often get little attention. If we always waited for a healthy showing with these discussions, it could take many weeks for the XfDs to close. So, a lack of opposition is taken to mean that there are no objections. Therefore, in the face of an objection after-the-fact, I believe we should reopen the discussion and relist it, as the discussion might not have properly gathered consensus. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I second the objections. Fast Folk Musical Magazine has a valid place in the history of the American folk/singer-songwriter movement, see the Fast Folk wikipedia article. Therefore, a list of artists who contributed is a valid category. This category appears to have been nominated for deletion arbitrarily and possibly without adequate research. Actions like this are the sort of thing that give wikipedia administration a bad reputation. DanTappan (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note - TenPoundHammer is not an administrator. Chubbles (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

…but I play one on TV. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - nothing procedurally wrong with the close and the closing admin did not misinterpret the discussion. Yes, participation was light but that's not particularly relevant as there is no way to extrapolate from participation what might have happened if more people had participated. I didn't bother !voting on this CFD, for instance, because the outcome seemed so obvious. CFDs have been closed without additional comments beyond the nomination. Complaints about whether editors choose to participate at CFD or not don't constitute significant new information. Otto4711 (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse/relist OK (closer). (1) This is essentially a complaint of "I didn't know about the discussion and would have opposed deletion had I known." That's a valid feeling to have when a category you like gets deleted, but it's not something that I as closer can foresee and therefore not a valid reason to overturn. (2) The previous discussion is irrelevant, except for an indication that more participation/interest in the topic is theoretically possible; (3) therefore, I'm fine with a relisting, but I echo Kbdank71's comments in suggesting that anyone who's concerned about a category add it to their watchlist. It saves the community a whole lot of wiki-drama and going back and forth from CfD to DRV if you just watch what you want to track. It's very easy and lots of folks do it. (4) In my experience, very few proposals or administrative actions to delete categories are done with bad faith motives. I'd like to see a review nomination for a category propose a review without insinuating that there was. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the keeper of all things precedential, is it my imagination or does precedent seem to only carry any weight in a close when a prior consensus in a vaguely similar case was delete? Why was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_25#Category:Fast_Folk_artists this prior precedent, where there was a clear consensus for retention of the exact same category nominated by the same nominator, ignored in favor of a one-person "consensus" for deletion, especially as you had closed the original CfD and seen the arguments posed there? What changed that demonstrates that consensus changed with this one vote? Alansohn (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you can see from looking at the discussion (and as others have pointed out here, most notably by Occuli, who made what I think is a very good comment below), the previous CfD was not referred to in the discussion. At the time I also didn't recall closing the previous discussion. Ergo, it didn't become an issue. It was neither consciously ignored nor considered. (PS: I didn't know your imagination was "the keeper of all things precedential". Your clause needs an object, there.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have long stated that CfD is a game and it looks like we're playing one here. Your devotion to precedent is such that you maintain User:Good_Olfactory/CFD, a laundry list of prior cases in about 100 different classifications in which you catalog results of prior CfDs, laboriously sorting all results to ensure that you can quote them in future discussions. These cases have been referenced on several dozen occasions, almost always presented with the demand that a current case must be decided for deletion based on the prior precedents, regardless of the lack of connection to the prior cases. You have done this on numerous occasions, as have other editors such as User:Otto4711 who berated a supposed "noob" for not adequately studying precedents (here). Yet in this case, not only did the prior precedent never make into your laundry list, not only did you not mention it in considering the result, but you insist that "The previous discussion is irrelevant, except for an indication that more participation/interest in the topic is theoretically possible". While I do appreciate the fact that you now agree with me that any and all precedents can be safely ignored (and I will be sure to quote your opinion where insistence for deletion based on "precedent" is offered), can you explain why a precedent with far greater participation should be ignored for a consensus of only one vote to delete? What rules do we operate under at CfD in which the value of a precedent is either infinite or zero on a completely arbitrary basis? Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a non-issue. Had it been referred to, it would have been considered. It was not, so it was not. As I said, because of the oversight, I've no problem with a re-listing, but it's irrelevant in assessing the procedural soundness of the close. (I would appreciate it if any future questions directed at me as the closer could stay somewhat on the topic of this close. Alansohn mentions a lot of things about me that it sounds like he has gripes about but which are entirely extraneous to the matter at hand.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me understand the rules of the CfD game: A precedent is of infinite value if its raised during a CfD or if it's raised by a closing admin who decides to raise it when closing a CfD (especially if it was to delete). However, precedent is worthless if it isn't raised or if the closing admin doesn't recall that he closed the exact same CfD nominated by the exact same editor who has opened such an inordinate number of CfDs that he too can't recall the result of the prior case (especially as it was closed as keep). Now that the precedent has been brought to your intention, doesn't this mean that the one-vote-to-delete close should be overturned and closed as Keep? If that's the case, why not simply overturn your own close instead of relisting? A simple acknowledgment to overturn your close would demonstrate some good faith on your part and, as you have stated, save "the community a whole lot of wiki-drama and going back and forth from CfD to DRV". A tiny dose of consistency that eliminates what appears to be a clear bias to delete regardless of the circumstances would help eliminate much of what you call "wiki-drama". Alansohn (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not inclined to respond to your inquiry further since your sarcastic tone suggests to me that you are not seeking information in good faith but rather trying to "score points" against other editors. But the short answer is: you're confusing the validity of an administrative action with the results you see as most appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        In general, the rather tattered credibility of all CfD closes is undermined if precedent either must be heeded or can be simply disregarded on an entirely arbitrary basis. There is a rather deep and fundamental problem here with this particular close of a CfD in which the same person nominates a category that was closed as keep previously, there is only a single vote to delete and the same admin who closed before as keep now closes the same CfD as delete with no evidence of consensus, let alone a change thereof. Alleging sarcasm (and none is intended) is a wonderful way to avoid discussion but you have not addressed the fundamental inconsistencies here. The capriciousness that appears to reign supreme at CfD need to be eliminated, and volunteering to overturn the close would demonstrate a small measure of good faith towards dealing with these problems. Feel free to not respond and allow your actions to speak for themselves. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I appreciate your statement that no sarcasm was intended. Perhaps it's just your way you chose to express yourself and the mentioning of so many extraneous issues that are not on point. I am not volunteering to "overturn the close" partly because there was zero support in the latest discussion for keeping the category. A relist is a far better solution in this case, and one that most other users seem to endorse. Since there a "defective" discussion, it makes sense to have a new one. That's why I endorsed my close but said relisting was OK. I'm certainly not going to volunteer to overturn it simply to assuage your impressions of the CfD system as a whole. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, was "defective" about the CFD? Otto4711 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no debate for the closer to assess.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the policy regarding consensus? Previous consensus -> Make an edit -> Was the article edited further? -> No? -> New consensus. There doesn't have to be debate to form a new consensus. At the time of the close, it was unanimous. Not sure how that is "defective". --Kbdank71 18:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the view that deletion needs a little more than WP:BRD plus WP:SILENCE.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a theoretical position to take that is fine, but from a practical standpoint not much would ever get accomplished at CfD if it were thoroughly adopted. Judged in the context of the level of community participation at CfD, there is nothing out of the ordinary about this CfD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll start to participate at CFD, because I can't endorse closes on that basis. I hear the pragmatism argument but let's do it right.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. The more the merrier. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I can use the company in trying to undo the damage at CfD, but I just have to warn you that there's very little to be merry about in the Bizarro world of CfD. Alansohn (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in anycase, if we are going to rely on WP:SILENCE to delete, we should be open to people missing some deadline. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers_by_performance_venue. Some artists have gotten their start on The Tonight Show, but we don't categorise based upon it. - jc37 10:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - per User:Good Olfactory. Procedurerly there is nothing wrong with the closure. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Ideally there would have been a link to the last CfD. Given the night-and-day difference between the two discussions, I think a relist is clearly in order. I can't imagine the close or discussion would have been the same if the link had been provided. Hobit (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Any concept of consensus is worthless if one individual's vote straight of the "arguments to avoid" list constitutes a community judgment. CfD is a rather poor reflection of what the community as a whole really thinks and operates largely on what seems to be a deliberate effort to keep anyone out who might dare to differ with the deletionist dogma that prevails there. There might well be legitimate arguments for deletion of this category, or consensus might be allowed to change, but there is no way that anyone can look at this and say that the discussion that took place represents community consensus. Alansohn (talk)
Relist – having read Fast Folk and both cfds, it seems to me that the deletion argument ('Performer by performance') in the second is incorrect and the analogy of 'artist by record label' is closer (if we restrict the category to those who released recordings with/via Fast Folk). I also think that there should have been a link in the 2nd cfd to the first - it's really not that difficult for a nom to discover previous cfds via 'what links here' and surely one of TenPoundHammer's many otters can be delegated to check these things? Also CGingold seems not to be looking at cfd these days and would surely have picked up on this one (as in the first one). I don't think there was anything wrong with the 2nd cfd or its close; but the 'new info' presented here is the first cfd. Occuli (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. MGM put the case quite accurately and succinctly. No substantive arguments in favor of deletion, especially in light of the previous consensus, which should have been given more weight. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist – I see it as a procedural problem that, in a discussion that drew little participation, no mention was made of the previous CfD, which was clearly noted at Category talk:Fast Folk artists. Is it not standard practice to look at a talk page before nominating something for deletion? It should be. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.