List of lists related to William Shakespeare ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

1) In what circumstances, and on what grounds, can a local consensus at an AfD overrule a global consensus in the form of a guideline? — Cirt's closure supports the view that the local consensus at the AfD should prevail over the guideline, which was in this case WP:CLN, and I will not deny that this is an arguable case. But I think that if the guideline at issue was WP:N, it would have been enforced.

2) To what extent, if any, were the earlier contributions to this AfD refuted by the later ones? — Cirt's closure supports the view that the earlier contributions were not substantially refuted in later discussion, and I am curious to see whether DRV participants will agree.

I want to say that I usually agree with Cirt's closures, and for such a prolific closer we see relatively little of him here; I raise this DRV in a spirit of respect for his many excellent closes.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 17:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure One of the keeps attacked the straw man of notability for lists, which was not actually raised by the deletes. DGG et al argued that such lists serve a useful navigational purpose, while the deletes by and large argued that this sort of thing is better off as a category. S. Marshall pointed out that the two need not conflict with each other, but that isn't how I read the opposes - I think they were expressing an intuitive concern that the list format was inappropriate for something like this, for whatever (unspoken) reason. On logic, I'd give the argument to DGG, but I don't think his argument was such a clear invalidation of the expressed opinions of previous editors that those opinions could be disregarded. If it had come earlier, the discussion might ahve gone differently, but as it is, I think Cirt accurately summarized the impressions of editors in the discussion. Ray ^Talk 17:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• I do not think the notability for lists argument is clearly a straw man, since the nominator did state that "Lists on WP are not a notable subject." That said, I think there is one argument for deletion that was not sufficiently rebutted - that the list is unnecessary because of the navigation template which already contains the content. Accordingly, endorse. Tim Song ( talk) 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, closure correctly reflected consensus, and consensus was indeed correct. Stifle ( talk) 09:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• overturn Local consensus should not override general guidelines without very good reasoning. This is especially the case when it is a sparsely attended AfD such as this one. JoshuaZ ( talk) 04:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to non-consensus I think the argument S Marshall made, & which I expanded on a little was correct: this is a navigational device. When we have a number of pages about a suitable related subject, we make a list and a category, and sometimes a navbox. We don;t insist that the entire concept of the list be itself notable, as long as the articles are, and the collocation of them sensible. There is no reason this does not apply in the next level also, when we have a number of related lists, we make a list & category of them also. Ultimately, we end up with [[Portal:Contents}] and the two Lists of topic & Category:Categories. Excellent precedents for this type of listing are located on that page. Obviously, we can decide locally not to make any one particular such list (or category) but there has to be a reason besides LISTCRUFT-- WP:N does not apply to lists of WP pages or we would have to remove every last one of them--I doubt there are any secondary sources for any WP list as being notable. Mainspace is not homogeneous. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I can't see an error with closing admin's interpretation of consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Consensus was to delete. Keep votes stated that lists are not subject to the same criteria that articles are, which is just not true per WP:STAND which states unequivocally that "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies". Them From Space 03:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. First, I think the closing was clearly within the closing admin's discretion. Second, I see no conflict between the AFD outcome and the guideline; the guideline sets out the types of list which are permitted, but does not say every possible example of a permitted type should be created or kept. Third, the list does not appear to be a useful navigational aid; everything it does is done much better by the Shakespeare template. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Phineas Taylor Barnum ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

One vote was cast to delete in what was a name change proposal. I can see why we don't characterize actors by their producers, if they made 200 movies, they could have 200 categories. But those that worked for Barnum are NOT overcategorized. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• I'm recusing from !voting on CFDs at the moment in an attempt to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse, but without actually !voting, I'm not sure in what sense the outcome reflected the discussion.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 11:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• The nom in that discussion actually supported deletion in a later comment. There are thus two deletes and one rename. I do not see the close as unreasonable, and so it has to be endorsed. That said, the debate was somewhat inadequate - there was no extensive discussion of the proposal to delete. My understanding is that this is the way with most CFDs. I think relisting is likely unnecessary; but if others find it appropriate I will not oppose. Tim Song ( talk) 11:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Too many truly notable figures fit into the category (Tom Thumb, etc.) for it to have been so readily deleted. BTW, "Phineas T. Barnum" is also common -- he is the only "showman" to have his bust on a US coin - and for reasons not associated with the circus at all. Collect ( talk) 13:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Tim Song. And per the "they could have 200 categories" argument. Any article that has 200 categories has too many, period. Relist if desired. -- Kbdank71 20:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The point swooshed by your head. My statement read: "I can see why we don't characterize actors by their producers, if they made 200 movies, they could have 200 categories. ..." You read it to mean the opposite.

Doesn't change my stance, however. Still endorse per Tim Song, and (whether it applies to this category or not) 200 categories is too many. The fact that I misread you just means that I now agree with that part of your statement. -- Kbdank71 17:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (original nominator). Essentially, it was 2–0 in favour of deletion. Two other users commented but did not opine on deletion vs. retention. The discussion was open for 12 days. {{ Barnum}} was created, which I think accomplishes the same thing in a more sensible way, since we don't usually categorize people "by people". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

We have nav boxes, lists and categories. Having one doesn't negate having the others. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

No, but users are permitted to choose to keep one type and delete another type. That's what has happened here. Of course there is no automatic rule that "[h]aving one doesn't negate having the others", but that's why there are discussions on these issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Two votes to rename one (or maybe two) to delete just does not equal a consensus of deletion. The closing admin's failure to provide a clear and concise justification for why consensus was blatantly ignored only adds a nail to this coffin. That we have admins who still believe the knowingly false position that the existence of a template is a valid argument for deletion of a category only shows how utterly dysfunctional CfD truly is. Alansohn ( talk) 19:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • If I asked you to explain your "knowingly false" statement, could you do it without further ignoring WP:AGF? And remember: (from WP:CLN) The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. -- Kbdank71 20:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    • The belief that the existence of a template justifies deletion of a category is knowingly false, particularly from someone like Good Olfactory who is well aware of WP:CLN. The sentence you quote offers diddlysquat in terms of justifying deletion. You studiously ignore its direct statement that "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap". Good Olfactory's vote is in blatant violation of this guideline and should be ignored as invalid. Alansohn ( talk) 23:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Huh ... wha ... ? That's certainly an interesting approach. Can we ignore your vote here as a blatant violation of the agf guideline, then? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Huh ... wha ... ? I guess the misrepresentation may not be deliberate, after all, though only if you are unfamiliar with WP:CLN. If you are familiar with that guideline and are unable to find any statement therein that supports deleting a category because a corresponding template exists, I stand behind my original statement. Alansohn ( talk) 03:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
          • I'm flushed with pride that you would imitate me. If you were saying it, would you do it in a funny voice?—I like it when people do that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Round and round and round we go. Alan, I wish I could say that dealing with you was anything but draining, but it's not. So I'll just stand by my original statement and leave it in the capable hands of the DRV closer. -- Kbdank71 03:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
        • The same closed CfD shop goes round and round, refusing to clean up the mess it has created. Kris, I wish I could say that dealing with you was anything but draining, but it's rather tiring dealing with the continued disruption to support deletion at all costs, even when it directly harms navigation. Alansohn ( talk) 03:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note (original nominator). Alansohn said above that there was "Two votes to rename one (or maybe two) to delete". Just to be clear, I was one of the original votes to rename, after which I said I preferred deletion, so it was more like 1–0 in favour of renaming and 2–0 in favour of deletion, with no one really opposing either. I said if it was kept, I still supported the rename suggestions. (And still do. If the category were restored, it certainly should be at Category:P. T. Barnum to match the main article and the template.) I see the closing admin has "retired" so he's not around to defend himself against attacks of believing "knowingly false statements" and "blatantly ignor[ing] consensus", but I think when the entire discussion is read it's not too difficult to see what the various users' opinions were. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse 2-1 in favour - not the most immense participation, but discussion was left open for 12 days and decisions are made by those who turn up. Navbox was created as a substitute for a category which was, against general practice, categorising people-by-people. -- Xdamr ^talk 21:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist nom was for a rename, became a deletion discussion. I suspect people with opinions on the deletion may have chosen to not contribute to the rename discussion but would have to a deletion discussion. No harm in relisting given the discussion wasn't overflowing with voices. Hobit ( talk) 14:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse but relist. I think Hobit has the nub of the issue; as we've recently discovered, the article alerts bot doesn't notify projects regarding renaming of categories, but does for deletion, so it is clear there are some differences between the two tags. I can't fault the closer, but I think this is another wrinkle we need to iron out at CFD. For the record, I have submitted a feature request regarding this point, Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests#Notification of category renaming tags. Hiding T 14:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Claudia Costa ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I voted on this AfD and stated "weak keep" as a joke. This is irresponsible and I assume full responsibility for my bad judgement. The only other vote on there was a "delete". We never established the notability of this article (because it simply is not there). This article should have been deleted. WildHorsesPulled ( talk) 00:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to Delete Sources here are not reliable, this young lady is simply not notable. I made the mistake of voting weak keep as a joke that was apparently not understood. WildHorsesPulled ( talk) 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Moved to correct location; closing admin notified. Tim Song ( talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment from closing admin. To be perfectly honest, I didn't give the "keep" vote much weight, since it didn't address the main concern. That said, however, after three weeks of being listed there was only one "real" vote, which hardly constitutes consensus. Relisting for a third time, while technically reasonable I suppose, wouldn't have been very practical. I think it would be better to wait a few weeks and re-nominate it with a fresh discussion, – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 02:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, then. I find no clear error in the close; given Juliancolton's explanation, I do not think the irregularity (one of the nom's own making, I might add, so arguably clean hands apply) materially affected the outcome. Tim Song ( talk) 02:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Juliancolton's close. That said, can somebody WP:IAR this and delete it like it was an expired prod? If after multiple relistings nobody genuinely believed the article should've been kept, I think that's sufficient to delete. Per WP:BURO, I don't see a need to go through another listing at AFD, where the backlog and quality of discussion is under enough pressure as it is. Ray ^Talk 05:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Nobody cared enough to delete it, basically.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 09:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• endorse- close was within admin discretion. For future reference- this is why you don't try sarcasm over the internet folks. Umbralcorax ( talk) 00:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - close was appropriate exercise of discretion. I commented early without !voting, as there are some claims to notability made in article. WildHorses hasn't put up that picture he promised yet though.-- Milowent ( talk) 04:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse; closure accurately reflected the apparent consensus, or lack thereof. If you want to put joke !votes on AFDs, either mark them accordingly or make them where they won't have an influence. Liberty to renominate immediately or at editors' discretion. Stifle ( talk) 09:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the closure per all of the above. For what it's worth, it appears that Costa is, in fact, one of two Playboy Mexico Playmates for November 2009 ( see here – NSFW). A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 05:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply