Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 4

:{{DRV links|Category:Figure skaters from Harbin|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 9#Category:Figure skaters from Odessa|article=}}

:Category:Sportspeople from Harbin is becoming a large category. The way to diffuse it would be by sport. The reasons proffered for deleting the category initially was that it is too specialized for the sport, but it forgets that for some cities (Harbin being a city of over 10 million people and a city known for producing winter sport athletes) it is not too specialized for the city. Nlu (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Restore I'm counting seven articles with a disambiguation (figure skater) in :Category:Sportspeople from Harbin and there may well be more articles with only the person's name, so a subcategory would be justified. De728631 (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse. Category diffusion has to be on a point that represents an accepted subcategorization scheme for both of its parents; the fact that one parent category may warrant diffusion does not entitle it to special treatment denied to other comparable topics. The fact that Harbin's basic sportspeople category might be large enough to merit diffusion does not get to override the fact that subcategorizing the figure skaters category by individual city is a bad idea — because the moment we allow "Figure skaters from (City)" for Harbin, people will automatically take that as license to start "Figure skaters from (City)" for every other city that has one figure skater from there too. So if you'd like to shoot for a comprehensive overturn of the consensus against "individual sport intersected with individual city" categories in toto, then you can always take that to a centralized discussion somewhere else — but no, we can't grant Harbin a special standalone exception to an established consensus that would still be applicable to every other city and every other sport. Bearcat (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Restore. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says:

  Deletion Review may be used:

  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page

  Nlu's argument in the DRV nomination:

  The reasons proffered for deleting the category initially was that it is too specialized for the sport, but it forgets that for some cities (Harbin being a city of over 10 million people and a city known for producing winter sport athletes) it is not too specialized for the city.

  is "significant new information [that] has come to light". This argument was not significantly discussed at the CfD.

  Because ":Category:Sportspeople from Harbin is becoming a large category", I agree that the proper way "to diffuse it would be by sport".

  {{tq|The fact that Harbin's basic sportspeople category might be large enough to merit diffusion does not get to override the fact that subcategorizing the figure skaters category by individual city is a bad idea — because the moment we allow "Figure skaters from (City)" for Harbin, people will automatically take that as license to start "Figure skaters from (City)" for every other city that has one figure skater from there too.}} – that editors may automatically take "Figure skaters from (City)" for Harbin as license to create "Figure skaters from (City)" for all cities that have only one figure skater is not a sufficient reason to prohibit the recreation of :Category:Figure skaters from Harbin.

  Cunard (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Meaning of the word "is" is|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 14#Meaning of the word "is" is|article=}}

:{{DRV links|The definition of "is" is|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 14#The definition of "is" is|article=}}

After the original redirect pages were deleted, "Meaning of the word 'is' is" and "Definition of "is" is" (using single quotation mark) were created as reincarnations of the original. I asked the creator about this; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)&diff=770021784&oldid=770021279 he said] that the redirect was necessary. Then I asked a request for undeletion, but the admin who deleted the originals did not respond. Therefore, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aervanath&diff=773393566&oldid=773265469 the discussion] was archived. I welcome comments about those. George Ho (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• It is difficult to work out what is being asked here, and then difficult to find a prima facie case for it. The 2009 RfD deletions were clear. If they are question, "Endorse". The recreations should be deleted for the same reason.
  The use of a term is not a justification of a redirect. The notion that redirects are required to enable search functionality is archaic and currently nonsense. Patchwork redirects based on editors guess of what unskilled encyclopedia users might want is obviously hopeless with regards to comprehensiveness or completeness. The answer is, instead, the automated search engine. Both the Wikipedia search engine, and a Google search of Wikipedia, will find terms in Wikipedia if the terms are subjected to any coverage in Wikipedia, and if they are not covered there should be no redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

:: Sorry for being less clear, SmokeyJoe. I was in a rush while nominating the deletions for review. I'll be clearer by proposing this: Maybe either undelete as original redirects to Lewinsky scandal or re-create as redirects to Copula (linguistics). George Ho (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

::: Oppose both. No redirects. Any request to download these titles should see the user sent to the search engine. They are not plausible titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

:::: But no objection to relisting, as it has been so long, and several others would like to discuss the case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, not plausible search terms. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Relist I find them plausible enough. I also do not se that they will cause any harm or confusion. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Restore I don't see the harm of having another discussion now. Eight years is a long time and views may well have changed. Hut 8.5 20:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Relist basically per Hut 8.5, it seems reasonable to have another discussion after 8 years. I don't know how useful the redirect would be, so I'm loath to just say "restore". Hobit (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• And noting that I agree with Patar also who has a very strong argument IMO. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• (Closing admin) Keep deleted, the arguments for keeping the redirects are no stronger now than they were 8 years ago. ({{u|George Ho}}, sorry I didn't respond on my talk page, I'm not around on Wikipedia all that much anymore.)-Aervanath (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Restore, or failing that relist. The "is" quote from the Lewinsky scandal is possibly the most famous quotation to come out of that. The first is a direct snippet from that quote, and the second is a common misquotation of that snippet. Anyone who actually wants to know what the definition of "is" is, would search for "is", not this phrase. With that in mind, the search results for this are pretty useless. The first only gets to the Lewinsky page as the 4th result, while the second only gets to Lewinsky on the second page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Restore. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says:

  Deletion Review may be used:

  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page

  Patar knight's strong argument that these redirects are plausible search terms was not discussed in the RfDs so this is "significant new information [that] has come to light".

  I also agree with Hut 8.5 and Hobit that it is reasonable to discuss this again after 8 years.

  Cunard (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, but really, Meh. The point of a redirect is a navigational aide which takes a term that somebody is likely to type into the search box, and points it to the most relevant article. It seems difficult to imagine anybody typing these phrases into the search box, so they're pointless redirects. On the other hand, redirects are cheap, so it's difficult for me to get too excited about these pointless redirects existing. I'd be perfectly happy to relist this instead, so the community can decide. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_2#Category:Wikipedians_with_red-linked_categories_on_their_user_talk_page|article=}}

Admin {{User|De728631}} deleted

• :Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page;
• :Category talk:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page

De728631 is a sporadic editor, and may be gone for days.

The G4 tag was disputed, in the history and on the talk page. The talk page was non-trivial, with a forward-looking discussion, and was G8-exempt tagged. Note the extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:User categories‎. G4 was not applicable, because the redirect, now in widespread use on categories deleted at CfD but in continuing use, is substantially different to what was discussed at the original CfD. Also, in line with discussions, and what I characterised as a "contested consensus" redlinked-usercategories are no longer tolerated. One admin, User:BrownHairedGirl, who has been driving these developments mentioned allowing one redlinked usercategory to continue, but what is really needed is a proper CfD discussion. If the category is to be deleted, emptying the category has to be on the table. Note that deletion of the category technically fails to delete the category, it is still there, still fully functional, and populated.

Perversely, for technical reasons, the populated red-linked category is more disruptive than the blue-linked redirected category.

Please undelete both, and list at CfD. There really needs to be formal discussion, and the proper place for that discussion is CfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse, without prejudice against a new CfD. The raison d'être of this category is its non-existence and creating it effectively defeats its purpose. The CfD argued against the existence and recreation of the category page, not against one or another particular content it might have had. Any difference in content (even if not as cosmetic as this time) is immaterial. If another CfD is desired, then it could be started: there's no need to recreate the category beforehand. As for the overall change in attitude towards red-linked categories, one recurring theme of the discussions behind that was allowing this single exemption. A proposal was tabled to standardise the name of this category, but in the absence of any further discussion, the status quo remains that this is the de facto exempt category and I frankly don't see the point of making any more fuss. As for the category's talk page, it was tagged as G8-exempt, so it might have been deleted in error, maybe {{u|De728631}} could undelete it? – Uanfala (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

:Thank you for pointing out my error of deleting the talk page. I have restored it for reference. As to the main page, I'll leave this to other non-sporadic editors. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse - We cannot keep ignoring consensus just because we want too! - The CFD discussion was closed as Delete in 2015 and so 2 years later the consensus should still apply now, If we have another CFD discussion now it could then be used as a precedent in another 2 years if this CFD was to be closed as Delete and inshort we could be having a CFD every 2 years!,

:In short consensus for the CFD was to delete so I see no valid reason to start a new one. –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• The removal of so many redlinked categories, leaving five residuals, not counting the few newly created, is the factor that justifies a new discussion. User:Bearian's recreation as the redirect was quite justifiable. User:De728631's improper G4 brings us to the point of WP:WHEEL. Also note that this is in the light of the point well made, that these jokes are old, shallow, and disruptive of valuable maintenance tasks. There is pleanty of scope in Wikipedia to protest, in essays, where the protest can be articulate, unlike protest by populating redlinked categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I get your point about the protest. Of course it's possible this category could also be seen as a sarcastic statement about the state of user categories until recently, but it's essentially just an ingeniously simple piece of self-referential humour. – Uanfala (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• For the record, it was User:Bearcat who recreated the page as a redirect. While this was not "substantially identical to the deleted version", i.e. a category page, I still thought the speedy deletion rationale to be valid. The CfD was closed as "delete". Had there been consensus for a redirect, it would have been noted in the CfD closure. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

::::The redirect target did not exist yet at the time of the delete discussion; it's a new consensus that was established by a centralized discussion about how to handle redlinked user categories earlier this year. The issue is that because Special:WantedCategories detects and lists redlinked user categories, but simultaneously has a limit on how many categories it's capable of detecting, the redlinked user categories were crowding out the mainspace categories that the page is intended to catch. Accordingly, the consensus was established a few weeks ago that redlinked user categories are now to be redirected to the target in question, so that people can keep them on their userpages without interfering with the operation of a necessary maintenance tool in the process. But user categories have to be kept off WantedCategories entirely — any redlinked user category either must be created as a redirect to that page or must be depopulated if there's a consensus that it's especially inappropriate for some reason, because the number of user categories on WantedCategories is expected and required to never exceed zero. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Bearcat}} This is valuable information which casts a new light on this case. Did you mean this centralised discussion which was also linked at the category talk page? With regards to this new consensus and the need to keep WantedCategories clear of user page redlinks I would agree to restore the redirect. De728631 (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• The treatment of a previously deleted page is not permanently locked in to the original result of a deletion discussion. Previously deleted categories can be recreated if the basis for their existence improves in the future (e.g. a former SMALLCAT that now has a higher number of potential entries than it did at the time of the original discussion); categoryredirects can be repointed to a different target than the original discussion identified if there's a valid reason for that to happen; and on and so forth. A new consensus was established about how to handle redlinked user categories, precisely because the limitations of Special:WantedCategories required a solution that got the user categories off of that list — so that is allowed to supersede the results of an older CFD discussion, and is not permanently precluded just because it wasn't the original discussion's conclusion. The number of user categories on WantedCategories has to be zero, so the only options available here are either the redirect or total depopulation — it cannot be left as a permanent speedbump that the categorization project is forced to work around but can never clear off WantedCategories in any way; every single thing that ever appears on that list must always be removable from it in some way, with no exceptions period. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Even though there ought to be some caution about the above statements (the relevant RfC hasn't been formally closed yet), I agree with {{u|Bearcat}}'s reasoning and I do endorse this approach to deleted user categories in the general case, but this category we're discussing now is different. First off, it's currently being discussed elsewhere (and recreation even isn't an option that's on the table there). But there's another matter as well: this should be really obvious to anyone who's read the title of the category or who's had a cursory look at its CfD, but I guess I might need to spell it out. Most other deleted user categories were deleted at CfD because the community decided they are crap and shouldn't be kept. Now they're being recreated as redirects because we don't want crappy categories cluttering the WantedCategories listing, and we don't want to police the user pages having them. This category's CfD discussion, on the other hand, was different and can be summarised as follows: the category is good, users should be allowed to have it on their pages, but since the category makes sense only if it's red-linked, it shouldn't be recreated. This is a very different situation, and I don't see how the current general approach to user categories could override this specific consensus. Of course, this consensus can be overridden with another CfD, to which I wouldn't object. – Uanfala (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• WantedCategories has to contain exactly zero user categories. Not "no user categories except for this one because reasons", but "no user categories except nothing because nothing". Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• I understand why this should be desirable, but I don't think there's anything near consensus for such strong injunctions. – Uanfala (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• {{edit conflict}} Why is there a need for this zero tolerance policy in WantedCategories? Is it for technical reasons, because of WP:REDNOT, or was it decided somewhere by consensus? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. De728631 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Maintenance queues always have to be completely clearable. Even if they get backlogged, it has to be at least possible for them to be emptiable to absolute zero — no maintenance queue on here can ever have permanent speedbumps stuck in its queue that it's not allowed to do anything about, because the whole point of the maintenance queues is to clean up the stuff that's not complying with our maintenance requirements. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• If a given maintenance queue includes stuff that there's community consensus doesn't need cleaning up, then this is a problem of the queue. – Uanfala (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• So to sum up what I could gather from the lenghty RfC: because there are objections to the forcible removal of such redlinks from user pages (see also previous CfD), one alternative would be redirecting them to that single container category. This would at least satisfy the no-permanent-redlinks condition of WantedCategories. De728631 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• The queue is automatically generated, and there's no technically feasible way to "blacklist" anything as "should not appear on this list". You're free to think that's "a problem of the queue" all you like, but it's a problem for which this was the only fix that's even possible for anybody to undertake. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Undelete, and I'm sighing over what a complicated situation we have here. There is extensive discussion going on at WT:User categories, and we need to have a consensus there before any sort of speedy anything will make sense, so please restore it temporarily, pending further discussion – which would best be consolidated in one place. There are all manner of issues that still need to be discussed and worked out. This isn't simply a matter of a consensus from a few years ago, because there has been ongoing discussion about possible changes in consensus, and these categories are at the heart of the matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• I've partially changed my mind, and I now endorse the argument given below by BrownHairedGirl. That really makes the most sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Undelete. I don't have a sysop's magic buttons anymore, and I can't recall exactly what I did. So let's undo it and start over. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but not emptying. A few months ago, there were hundreds of permanently redlinked user categories, which cluttered up Special:WantedCategories and seriously impeded both clearance of a humungous backlog, and ongoing cleanup of the ~100 new redlinked categs generated every day. Through a combination of measures, that forest of clutter has been reduced to a few lone remnants, of which this is the most widely-used. It was User:EEng who suggested keeping this a lone remnant, and I agree. Because it is so well-populated, it sorts to the top of the list, and is easily skipped. The whole point of it is keeping it red, so undeleting it would perversely defeat its purpose.
  The problem has largely been resolved, and I see no meaningful gain from continued wrangling over this categ. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• The agreement of two editors, User:EEng and User:BrownHairedGirl, in passing conversation to establish a long binding rule for everyone to follow is a little unsatisfying. It is actually about as bad as the clique of CfD-ers in 2007 who established the hyper-restrictive usercategories practice. It really should be subject to a proper CfD, with all stakeholders notified. The decision to "delete but not empty" strikes me as perverse, and is a particular decision taken by BHG in many separate CfDs recently that played a large part in driving this to a head. The self referential joke is now old and of no continuing value. There is a clearly a relaxing of tolerance of usercategories, and so these protests against usercategory police are also old. In general, "delete but do not empty" should not be a result. If a category is unacceptable, the colour of the link doesn't matter. In any case, this is too complicated for the CSD#G4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

:::Hey, leave me out of this. I just made the suggestion. EEng 04:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

:::: You did good to make the suggestion. I just don't think it is sufficient on its own to justify to justify speedy deletions. Agreed, it is definitely not your faults. In fact, none of this should be seen as a fault-finding exercise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

::::(ec) @SmokeyJoe: that sounds a bit hyperbolic. Two editors cannot make a binding rule; they can propose, but the community decides. My !vote at this DRV counts for no more than anyone else's.

::::My own personal preference would be very much to have no redlinked usercats, and I agree that the joke is stale. But the ~27 editors who currently categorise themselves in this category clearly disagree, so I am advocating a compromise which both sides can live with, so that we can all stop arguing about this and get on with other tasks.

::::Maybe a full CFD discussion would reach some other sort of consensus, but I don't see much sign of it. And CFD, with its keep/delete choices, is ill-equipped to deal with a category whose advocates want the page to remain deleted.

::::Joe seems annoyed by my closure of a few CFDs, but seems to have forgotten that my purpose in doing so was to centralise discussion (per WP:MULTI) rather than arguing the same point of principle in a dozen separate discussions, and to break the futile cycle of CFD-deletion/bots empty categ/editors repopulate the redlink/redlink-is-turned-blue/back to CFD.

::::That RFC hasn't reached a formal consensus, but for now we have a sort of kludgy compromise which allows editors to get on with their work. That's my main priority, and I don't see how a full CFD is going to get us to any better place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

::::: An unjustified speedy deletion, explicitly contested by me, if unchallenged, would appear to uphold a small agreement as the basis for admin fiat over categories. Category police. It is the wrong way to go. CfD is the right way.

::::: At CfD, as opposed to WP:CSD#G4, there is scope to discuss further options, and most certainly, to discussion "deleted and empty".

::::: I am not annoyed by BHG's closure of a few CFDs, as while they were not consensus closes, they did lead directly to an RfC addressing the issue directly. The RfC is very interesting. I learned a few things. BHG even changed her mind, and later so did I. The RfC is, however, it is too complicated to be closed with any meaningful result, like most RfCs not initiated with a good question.

::::: The kludgy compromise needs to be ratified by a CfD, not by a dubious G4. Bearcat's (not Berian's, sorry) creation of the redirect was justified. Speedying it was not. The purpose of this DRV is to review the deletion, a deletion that I call unjustified. The purpose of CfD is to discuss and decide on what to do with specific categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

::::::I've read this subsequent discussion, and I still agree with BrownHairedGirl. I think that the larger discussion can still progress, without needing to relitigate the deletion process. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

::::::: The new question has never been litigated in a deletion discussion, which is why G4 was inappropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

:*The thing is, it's not just this one category. There are three other versions of this exact same thing on Special:WantedCategories too, because somebody's own choice of how to phrase this category name varied from the standard. And again, WantedCategories cannot contain permanent speedbumps that the people who work with it are expected to just perennially work around and neither resolve nor clear — the acceptable number of do-nothing entries on that list is zero. Not "four special cases that aren't harming anything so quit whining": zero, with zero exceptions for zero "special case" reasons, period. I don't give a flying donut what people who don't work with the categorization project think about whether this matters or not — the people who do the work in a maintenance queue are the ones who get to decide how much disruption we're willing to tolerate of the tools we have to work with to do it. The people who work with WantedCategories are the ones who get to decide how many "never do anything and just leave it here permanently" entries WantedCategories should or should not contain. Bearcat (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I am sorry, but this discussion (and any ensuing CFD) is an example of Wikipedia disappearing up its own navel. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• +1 :) I would only add that such a discussion might actually be good for the project, as it soaks up any unspent editorial silliness and stops it from spilling into the parts of the encyclopedia that actually matter. – Uanfala (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse – closing admin correctly interpreted the consensus at CfD. Amisom (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

::That's not what's in question here. Bearcat (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

:::Disagree. Amisom (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

::::Your disagreement doesn't change the fact that questioning the original decision isn't what the nominator raised for discussion here. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::OK. I'm content to leave it to the closing admin to decide. Thanks for your input though Bearcat. Amisom (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note to closer. If the deletion is endorsed and until some other consensus is achieved via CfD, the category should be re-salted to prevent further bunfights every time a well-meaning passer-by creates it unaware of the discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• (Deletion log); 23:04 . . {{User|Nyttend}} deleted page Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page ‎(G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Creation defeats the point)
  Yet another admin's heavy handed misuse of CSD. Perhaps they need to read the opening line of WP:CSD again? Creation defeats the point? The whole point is in dispute. G4 and worse G6 should not be used to defeat active discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

:*Not heavy handed, Just common sense!, It clearly does defeat the purpose of the category and if you cannot see that then god help us all. –Davey2010^Talk 00:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

::* You, someone directly involved as a member of the category in question, are able to judge that other opinions, expressed by multiple other editors, some here most at Wikipedia_talk:User_categories, are to be rejected per commonsense to the point that a page should be out-of-process speedied under a non-applicable criterion?

::: Administrators may ride roughshod over continuing discussion, using administrator privileges? This is not to you "heavy handed"?

::: This history of actions here, the SALTing, the bold mass-closing of CfDs with one person's peculiar preference, the recreation through SALTing, the two misused CSDs, this is the cusp of WP:WHEEL. The points made in polite discussion at WT:UCAT have been trampled by bold admin actions. The disputed purpose of the category is not the real issue here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

::::@SmokeyJoe: it's all very well to point to procedural flaws. If you want to go down that path, then I'd just say that your list is very selective, and misleadingly presented. I could set that out in much more detail gain, but you already know the points if you want to acknowledge them.

::::However, en.wp is not a bureaucracy. We have has a loong RFC which didn't reach a clear conclusion, but out of all the drama we have arrived at a kludgy solution which most editors can live with. I see no sign that the balance of opinions has changed significantly, so another RFC would just absorb yet more huge chunks of editorial time. How is that productive? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

:::: NOTBUREAUCRACY is not a CSD criterion. I opposed deletion of the category redirect, agreed with you that the joke is old, disagree with you that "delete and do not empty" is a way forward, and in the face of that consider the G4 and then the G6 an abuse of process and unacceptable. The answer is not another emotive RfC, but a simple CfD. Undelete the category and list at CfD. Decide by consensus, not by deletion tools. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::@SmokeyJoe: I closed those CFDs as "delete and do not empty" not because that was a way forward, but precisely because it was a way nowhere. As I explicitly noted in those closures, it was a way of restoring the status quo ante, to allow a centralised discussion on what to do about redlinked usercats, rather than have about a dozen simultaneous CFDs essentially discussing the same point of principle. See for example WP:CFD 2017 January 4#Category:Wikipedians confined to the peanut gallery.

:::::That was all discussed at the January RFC, where there was no consensus.

:::::Maybe this time round it could be done as one CFD rather than a dozen of them, but the problem with using CFD to decide this is that none of the usual CFD outcomes (keep/delete/merge/rename) address the issues here, which is that a) ~25 editors (at latest count) want these categories deleted but not emptied; b) nobody actually wants the category kept as a blue link.

:::::So whether the discussion takes place at CFD or RFC or elsewhere, it will be all the same old arguments. I don't see how rehashing them at CFD will be any less heated to having them at RFC, or produce a different outcome.

:::::In the end this all comes down to the simple core question asked at January RFC: does deletion of a category allow editors to remove it from userpages? That's a policy question, not a CFD question.

:::::Unless and until that question is answered, a CFD is just a way of generating heat. It's now 3 months since the previous RFC started, so maybe a new RFC might produce a different outcome ... but I doubt it. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::: Consensus hasn't been established, and the use of G4 and G6 was inappropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::::No objecion to starting a new CfD, but until that happens the current consensus (established at the last CfD in 2015) is against the creation of the category. G4 was just maintaining the status quo. – Uanfala (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::::: G4 didn't apply because the content was very different to that discussed at CfD. The mass creation of category redirects was broadly accepted, with no formal challenges, except for this one where you G4 tagged. When I contested that tag, it should have prevented speedy deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::The content (even if not so superficially different as in this case) is irrelevant because the CfD's outcome was against the creation of the category and it wasn't contingent on it having a certain content. The class of user categories that a mass creation was broadly accepted for did not include the current category, and its exemption was explicit in the discussion that sanctioned the mass creation. – Uanfala (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::: That's what you'd like to think, but it isn't true. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse What purpose would restoring this category serve? SmokeyJoe makes a legalistic argument to restore a page that was created by accident that should not ever be created by its very nature. It's SALTed. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• Does the opening line of WP:CSD mean what it says or not? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Aphmau|xfd_page=|article=}}

Aphmau's page was deleted because it was said to be in violation of A7. A7 states as of 02:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC), "this applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event[8] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." This deletion review will be about negotiating this claim.

In the Wikipedia policy for notability of people, it states as of 02:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC) that for basic criteria, "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I have listed independent sources as follows:

• http://shortyawards.com/9th/_aphmau_
• http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/aphmau.html
• http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/aphmau-29789.php

In the Wikipedia policy for notability of people, it states as of 02:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC) that for any biography, "The person [needs to have] received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Aphmau, has been the recipient multiple digital YouTube rewards, such as the Graphite Award, Opal Award, Bronze Award, and multiple physical awards as well such as the Silver Play Button 30px, and the Gold Play Button 35px.https://vidstatsx.com/challengeacceptedinc/youtube-channelhttps://www.youtube.com/yt/creators/en-GB/benefit-levels.html?noapp=1http://www.businessinsider.com/largest-youtube-channels-receive-gold-play-buttons-2012-7

In the Wikipedia policy for notability of people, it states as of 02:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC) that for creative professionals, "The person [needs to be] regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" Aphmau is regarded as an important figure, as she is in the list of the top 1000 most subscribed channels on YouTube, and that she is in the list of the top 750 most viewed channels on YouTube.https://vidstatsx.com/youtube-top-750-most-viewed#challengeacceptedinchttps://vidstatsx.com/youtube-top-1000-most-subscribed-channels#challengeacceptedinc She is number #650 in the list of most views, and #920 in the list of most subscribers. Another example is that Aphmau is cited by her peers in the show Wonder Quest (web series). She plays a supporting role as a character named Akira.

In the Wikipedia policy for notability of people, it states as of 02:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC) that for creative professionals, "the person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Aphmau's work has won significant critical attention by being nominated in the "Gaming" category of The Shorty Awards.http://shortyawards.com/9th/_aphmau_

In the Wikipedia policy for notability of people, it states as of 02:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC) that for entertainers, "[the person must have] a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Aphmau has over 2,600,000 subscribers on YouTube, and has a collective view count of over 1,000,000,000!https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/challengeacceptedinc

In conclusion, I think with this body of evidence that Aphmau is notable enough to follow Wikipedia's Notability's guidelines for people.

{{reflist}}

-- Unsigned 4 April 2017‎ {{User|Jamesjpk}}

• Endorse I don't think an article which said the above would have been deleted under A7, but this article didn't. Instead it went into great detail about the subject's personal life (her schooling, how she met her husband, her pet dog, etc) and didn't cite any sources other than YouTube and Twitter. It did include the subscriber and view counts but didn't make any claim about them being particularly important. Given this deletion under A7 was perfectly reasonable. There isn't anything stopping you from writing another article about this person as long as you address the reasons why it was deleted, such as by including the above information in the article. Hut 8.5 06:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse. The article as deleted had no explanation of why "Aphmau" was notable or important, and the deletion was correct. As said, a new article could be created explaining and proving why she is in fact notable, if that is the case. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse. Looking at the deleted article, it's abundantly clear that WP:A7 applied. As pointed out above, there's nothing to prevent a new article from being created, but please note that such an article would need to meet our notability guidelines, including reliable, third-party sources which cover the subject in depth. Looking at the sources presented here, I don't think any of those would meet that requirement. Just those sources alone would preclude another WP:CSD deletion, but I strongly doubt they would be enough to survive WP:AfD. And, given that the article has already been deleted twice, a third deletion decision, at AfD, might well result in the title being salted. So, if you're going to try again, do your research and do a good job. You might want to try starting with Draft:Aphmau and going through the WP:AFC process to get some independent review first. Full disclosure: I am a YouTube employee. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

::Hmmm, I see Draft:Aphmau already exists. Sadly, this appears to be an almost exact copy-paste reproduction of the deleted article, the only difference being the addition of a few more highly dubious sources and a bunch of spammy external links. The chances of that passing a WP:AFC review are just about nil. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:::I've removed the worst of the external link farm. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:I remind the creator that even if the article is restored from speedy as no longer being a valid speedy, or moved into article space from Draft, the decision on whether to keep it in WP will probably be made at a likely future afd, not here. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:Endorse deletion. What the nominator appears to have missed is that

:# the sources they proferred here are not reliable ones — a person is properly sourced when they're the subject of media coverage in newspapers, magazines or books, not when they have a profile on a user-generated public relations site like Famous Birthdays, or the website of an organization they're directly affiliated with, or a statistics page in a statistical directory; and

:# the awards they listed are not major awards that constitute an ANYBIO pass. That criterion covers an actor winning an Oscar or a BAFTA, a writer winning a Pulitzer or a Giller, a musician winning a Grammy or a Juno. It does not mean that anybody who wins any award is always automatically a valid article topic — if it did, we would have to keep an article about everybody who ever won a high school poetry contest or employee of the month at Arby's.

:Deletion is not necessarily permanent; if a new article can be created which makes a better case for her notability and references it to better sources, then nothing stops somebody from doing that. But nothing shown here constitutes compelling evidence that this version satisfied our requirements — what's been shown here is that Jamesjpk misunderstands what's required in the first place, not that BigHaz acted incorrectly. And considering that so far the new draft version is mostly getting sourced to Twitter tweets and her own and other people's YouTube videos, rather than to reliable sources, I still don't have any confidence that Jamesjpk has actually gained any greater understanding of what it would actually take to get that draft approved. Bearcat (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)