- List of African American women (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
None of the deletion rational was based on notability but instead irrelevant points. Policy is against deleting list simply because some prefer categories. None of the rational from the delete votes is a valid reason to delete a page. Discussed it with closing administrator on their talk page. [1] Dream Focus 18:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Three delete voters said "overly broad and inherently unmaintainable", with one saying "overly broad". By only listing notable African American women who have their own articles, that problem could be solved. Several stated it'd be better as a category, which is not a valid reason for deletion either. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Dream Focus 18:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Self Endorse Been picking up the slack in AFD left by Cirt's desysop, guess I gotta expect some DRVs. I believe consensus was clear in the AFD. "African American women" is not exclusive at all and I don't think anyone on that list would be notable simply for being an African American woman.--v/r - TP 18:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. There is consensus that the list had such a broad scope that it was indiscriminate and no longer useful. The conversion to category is an extra, since it had stated support, but it wasn't heavily argued that the list should be deleted just because a category was better — frankie (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indiscriminate? Didn't it only include blue linked articles to African American women? Dream Focus 03:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think indiscriminate was meant regarding the list's definition for inclusion, so that it would be unmanageable even if no red link was included at all. It might be that it isn't the case, perhaps it could be managed as a list of lists (like the examples below), but there is no standing consensus one way or the other, not to the point that it could override the "local" consensus achieved at the AfD — frankie (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - yeah the close was a good one, Dreamfocus is raising arguments better suited to the deletion discussion itself, than a DRV: there is consensus in that discussion that the list is to broad is indeed a reason to delete.--Cerejota (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the List of Native American women or Lists of African Americans to broad? List can be managed, with subcategories if necessary. Dream Focus 03:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEANS dude, WP:BEANS...--Cerejota (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Though generally if there is a category there should be a list, and vice-versa, , sometimes there are practical exceptions, and the community has the right to decide when to make them. And it did in this case. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. Dream Focus is raising arguments perfectly well suited to DRV: the arguments for deletion were not based in policy, not even in guidelines, and the closer erred by not considering the validity of the arguments. WP:CLN is explicit on this point: "arguing that a Category or List is duplicative of the other in a deletion debate is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." DeliciousBits (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and keep. This DRV has to consider broader issues than the AfD did, and Dream Focus is bringing up very valid points. Considering the possibilities of how this deletion could reflect on the project as a whole, its imperative this be overturned and the list be reinstated. • Freechildtalk 10:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TParis correctly found that the consensus was to delete. But the consensus itself does not appear to have been in accordance with the usual Wikipedian custom and practice. WP:CLN says that categories and lists can co-exist, so "convert to category and delete" is an unusual outcome. It's true that a complete list would be ridiculously large, but we have no rule that says a list must be complete, or even completable. This is what Dream Focus is getting at, above. We have lists of African Americans. We have lists of books. Plenty of lists are not completable. This does not mean that they're unmaintainable or unencyclopaedic. So overall, although I endorse TParis' assessment of the consensus, I think the consensus itself was so far out of line that it would be appropriate to send it back to AfD for a better discussion.—S Marshall T/C 11:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I find your argument persuasive, but since I didn't see the list itself, can an admin kindly temporally restore? In particular, lists of African Americans and lists of books are "list of lists", which are generally kept, but I have no idea if this list met that criteria. If it did, I think S Marshall's point on policy and usual practice being a systemic consensus not to be ignored in an AfD without argument as possible reason to overturn.--Cerejota (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I suggest this revision as it was the revision at the time of the close.--v/r - TP 00:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Having seen it, my endorsement then stands, without prejudice for recreation if it becomes a "List of lists" of more focused topics of African American women, in the style of lists of African Americans and lists of books. Categories are generally built from the top down, but lists are different, and are often built from the narrow up to the broad.--Cerejota (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it normal practice to delete something that could have been fixed instead?—S Marshall T/C 07:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I am arguing and CSD criteria certainly doesn't apply here, but there is precedent in CSD:G11 for deleting an article that can be improved. It says "...would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic".--v/r - TP 12:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [2] This seems rather encyclopedic already. Every name is a blue link to their own article. It list information as well, so you know who is who, far more useful than a category. Dream Focus 17:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a list of lists, as Cerjota suggests, is an excellent way of handling this one. I continue to support as a general rule list⇔category, but as a single list, it's just too unwieldy. We make the rules; we can also make the exceptions. I agree with S Marshall that this close isn't consonant with the usual line of decisions, but there's no reason why it always has to be. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As someone who hasn't participated enough in DRV discussions, I've waited to see what arguments would be made. My initial instinct was much as the AfD discussion tended (over-broad, impossible to complete), but I hadn't seen the original list. It's a broad intersection based solely on race and gender. Seeing the list doesn't change my mind much. But I'm satisfied with the argument made by User:Cerejota that as a list of lists this could serve a navigation function compatible with aligned categories. As mentioned the closer's decision is somewhat out of line with common practice, so it's very reasonable to discuss that call in this process. While my first reaction wasn't sympathetic to User:Dream Focus, I'm glad that user decided to raise these issues. BusterD (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, does anybody have an applicable "list of lists" drawn up in userspace yet, ready to be moved into this space, since that appears to be a broadly agreeable outcome? I know Wikipedians love ritual, proper placement of soup spoons and procedure for procedure's sake, so I anticipate another "deletion" of this article. But it would be advisable to avoid the damage to Wikipedia's public image that will come from destroying an article at this title. A swift swap for a "list of lists," followed by a history-undeletion for the sake of reference and convenience of ensuring other lists' completeness, would be most preferable. Let's try to be smart about this. DeliciousBits (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not really that long of a list. [3] No problems at all with it. If it ever gets too long, then it can be broken into side list. Dream Focus 11:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not too long a list, and I said overturn to keep. But I know how these things tend to go. The necessary touching of lampposts and counting of doorknobs must be performed. There is more support for a list of lists. Thus someone should have a list of lists ready in userspace for when all the doorknobs are counted. DeliciousBits (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The haters will always be haters, no sense jumping through hoops so they can satisfy their win at all cost mentalities. Dream Focus 11:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly I think that a list of lists and an undeletion of page history is approximately a win for everyone. Anyway, it appears you won't be compiling said list of lists. I hope someone else does. DeliciousBits (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Consensus was read by the closing admin, no wrongdoing or serious administrative error cited. A perennial DRV gadfly should know by now that DRV is not a venue to use to to prolong the argument. Tarc (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clear to me we should have this list but the old one was !voted to be deleted. I'd strongly argue that this should be a list-of-lists and deletion doesn't make sense per S Marshall and basic common sense. I'd prefer a relist for a wider discussion, but have no basis for that other than IAR. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The discussion was read correctly and the proper action was taken. ThemFromSpace 03:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|