Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 13#Category:Wikipedians with ADHD

:{{DRV links|Category:Wikipedians with ADHD|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 2007#Category:Wikipedians with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder|article=}}

Outdated decision (taken on 1 October 2007). There's hundreds or thousands of Wikipedians with ADHD, deserving the same consideration as other Wikipedians by medical condition, for example Wikipedians with autism (Wikipedians with autism, Wikipedia autism, WikiProject Autism). We currently have 7 different templates for users with ADD/ADHD, that could easily help us with the categorization. Regards, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

:Note that the other category deletions made on the same day for the same reasons have already been overturned, for example :Category:Wikipedians with bipolar disorder (deletion page). Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Allow recreation. I'm not sure how I'd !vote if this came up at CfD, but I do think that if it's recreated it shouldn't be G4'd on the basis of a fifteen-year-old discussion, especially since more recent discussions (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 14#Category:Wikipedians with bipolar disorder and the two below it) indicate that consensus may have changed on this issue. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, don't allow re-creation - WP:USERCAT lays out the guidelines for user categories. The gist of that guideline is that user categories are supposed to be for collaboration to help improve the encyclopedia. User categories are, in essence, supposed to be for finding people who are similarly interested in collaborating on the topics related to that category. I would submit that a category for people who happen to have ADHD does not further that goal. You said it yourself, there are hundreds or thousands of Wikipedians with ADHD. To that I say, so what? Why do we need a user category for that? How would keeping a collection of such users benefit the encyclopedia? I would wholeheartedly support creation of :Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to ADHD for those who are interested in using a category to help improve the encyclopedia. I don't, however, support keeping any number of categories of people with various medial diagnoses, and would support deletion of the categories mentioned above for the same reasons. There may be a select few categories that could be an exception based on plausible usage in the project, but I don't see how something as common as this would fit that mold. WP:USERCAT states "As with all categories, user categories should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. If a Wikipedian wishes to have such a notice, they may edit their user page and add the notice in some other way (such as by adding text or a userbox) instead of creating a category group." Allowing this category to be re-created would be exactly that, simply a bottom-of-the-page notice without any plausible reason for someone to go looking through this category in an effort to help improve the encyclopedia. I don't like how there are differing precedents on the same type of category, I will grant you that, but I don't think that justifies bringing back an unhelpful category just for the sake of reconciling competing precedents. If anything, a CFD should be started for those other categories to accomplish that goal. I would support a wider discussion as to the appropriateness of these categories but I don't think a poorly participated in CFD from 2014 for a similar category is sufficient evidence on its own to say that consensus has changed (and, if it has, how does that reconcile with WP:USERCAT?) I'll also add that the fact there are templates for this should have zero bearing on if there should be an associated category. We have numerous userbox templates and plenty of them do not have associated categories, usually because such a category would not benefit Wikipedia. Note: I speedy deleted this category in 2012 per WP:CSD#G4, as detailed in the logs. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• Allow recreation, subject to another CFD if someone wishes to re-nominate it. A 15-year-old discussion should not be the sole reason this category is held back when categories for users with other medical conditions. I also disagree with VegaDark's assessment that a category for people who happen to have ADHD does not further the goal of finding people who are similarly interested in collaborating on the topics related to that category. Persons with a medical condition (and who wish to display it by including themselves in such a category) are likely to be more inclined to edit articles related to the medical condition, therefore the category allows interested users to collaborate on these topics. Frank Anchor 19:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

::"Persons with a medical condition (and who wish to display it by including themselves in such a category) are likely to be more inclined to edit articles related to the medical condition, therefore the category allows interested users to collaborate on these topics." Even if this were true, wouldn't my proposed category of :Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to ADHD be a more inclusive category for those who are interested in collaboration but don't have ADHD? It seems like rationalizing this category's existence in this manner would specifically exclude those without ADHD, and it also doesn't convey that the category is intended for collaborative purposes as opposed to a bottom of the page notice. Do you feel that, assuming both were blue links, :Category:Wikipedians with ADHD has a encyclopedia-building function to serve that :Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to ADHD couldn't achieve better? VegaDark (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

:::False juxtaposition and not exclusionary - self-identifying Wikipedians with ADHD may or may not be interested in collaborating on topics related to ADHD. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• This discussion is a mess. First of all, on the merits of the category, I agree entirely with VegaDark and see no discernible purpose to having it. The nomination statement does not provide any such purpose, and merely says "there is a userbox, so there should be a category", contrary to WP:USERBOXCAT. But this is DRV, not CFD, and what DRV cares about is whether the consensus reached in 2007 still holds. On that matter, I must conclude that the fact that discussions such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 14#Category:Wikipedians with autism and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 8 closing as keep have eroded the underlying 2007 consensus, so weak allow recreation, although I will bring any recreated category back to CfD and support deletion there. Basically per Extraordinary Writ, although we reached the same argument independently. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• Weak keep deleted I find nothing here that is promoted by WP:USERCATYES, and find the arguments that WP:USERCATNO applies somewhat but not conclusively persuasive. I agree that the "interested in" syntax would clearly be a YES criteria, and suggest that the other categories focusing primarily on Wikipedians' medical characteristics be repurposed in such a manner or deleted. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment We have a problem with categories on Wikipedia. When an article is deleted at AFD, an editor can create a draft version and submit it through AFC and there is the potential that it returns, in a better state, to the main space of the project. But CFD decisions, even from years ago, tend to be upheld FOREVER. There is no draft space to introduce categories that were once deleted and old CFD decisions are usually brought up to decide current CFD cases on the same categories. I don't think a category deletion should be forever, there should be a way of overturning a poor closure or a discussion that was decided by two or three editors but I think that this rarely happens due to the conservative nature of the category hierarchy on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• I strongly agree with Extraordinary Writ and Liz. To be honest, the original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. Not only because it was taken 15 years ago by four people including the nominator, who commented in favor of the deletion not once but twice, but also for the same reason why I find these statements against the recreation very weak: there's no point in having all these user categories for Wikipedians by medical condition and not allowing us with ADHD to be categorised as any other neurodivergent community, that would help us find other people to work with on pages about neurodivergence/neurodiversity, as well as other common interests and hyperfixations we all have. So... I stand with:

: Overturn as nominator, obviously. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

::{{ping|Est. 2021}}, Your nomination is already considered an "overturn" vote. Striking this duplicate vote. Frank Anchor 13:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

:::{{Ping|Frank Anchor}} I was just making a point: as I already said, "the nominator commented in favor of the deletion not once but twice" and nobody here contested that, so I did the same thing to get this comment. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

:: There was nothing wrong with the 2007 discussion, which was unanimously in favor of deletion, and there has been no change in {{em|policy}} to make it {{tq|inconsistent with current policies}}. The reason some people are wanting to overturn this is a combination of being willing to give you a second chance and the fact that uncodified consensus may have changes, but this comment is seriously overstating your case. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

:::{{Ping|Pppery}} Nice, but I made a point, so I'm not gonna be sorry for doing the exact same thing the original nominator did without being contested. I don't even think this is related to ADHD, it's just common sense IMHO. Have a good day, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

: Comment I don't think this is the right venue. There seems to be no problem with the original discussion so overturning that seems unlikely. If this were an article we'd likely conclude it's an old discussion so if you can overcome the original reasons for deletion it can be recreated, no DRV needed. Is that the case here? It's a bit harder with these sort of things which aren't encyclopaedia content they are about the way the encyclopaedia is built and opinions on that often change as the people building the encyclopaedia change. And indeed we have a few more recent views that apparently such categories are useful, albeit those local consensuses don't necessarily trump the broader consensus represent in policies/guidelines etc. As such I suspect a broader discussion to gain a broader consensus on the broader topic of if such categories are useful would be required.

:Personal view, I don't see the value in these, having a medical condition may indeed lead to an interest in that condition, but that doesn't necessarily lead to an interest in writing and encyclopaedia article about it (or indeed capability to do so). Likewise not having the condition doesn't preclude an interest and capability... There can't be contributions based on the personal experiences of sufferers of the condition without being OR. So I really don't see the value. As above though that would be my take, but really it needs a broader view from a broader set of people currently building the encyclopaedia. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Allow recreation basically per Extraordinary Writ. No prejudice against a new CfD should anyone be so inclined. It just seems A) inconsistent with recent outcomes and B) the CfD is very not-recent and so that old that it shouldn't prevent someone from moving forward here. (So basically per Liz also...) Note: I may well !vote to delete it if it does make it to CfD--I'd need to consider the details more closely. Hobit (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse per Jclemens. No reason to overturn with regard to WP:DRVPURPOSE. Significant new information has not come to light, seeing that the 2007 discussion is fully compatible with the current WP:USERCAT guideline. Perhaps a discussion about such categories should be had on the guideline's talk page. —Alalch E. 09:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Disallow recreation. As explained by others above, this category does not aid collaboration and therefore fails WP:USERCAT. Sandstein 14:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Allow recreation per Hobit, Liz, Frank Anchor and Extraordinary Writ. A discussion this old that is contrary to more recent consensuses does not justify disallowing this category. Whether categories like this do or not meet WP:USERCAT is something on which reasonable Wikipedians clearly disagree, so this is something that needs discussion at the appropriate venue (which is CfD not DRV). I don't know what I would recommend at CfD, it may be deletion, but the arguments need to be presented and evaluated there. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Allow recreation Concur with arguments in favour above, however, I would add that the result of the 2012 Gay Wikipedians CfD discussion is also germane. Self-identifying categories suggestive of an inability to uphold this encyclopaedia's principles are rightly considered inappropriate...but no argument here shows that to be the case with this category. Qui nocetur? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)