List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The vast majority of the "Keeps" went directly against policy, often saying it should be kept because they dislike the tone of the other articles on the subject, and want something pushing their point of view to balance (That makes it a WP:POVFORK, which is explicitly forbidded). This article clearly violates numerous policies, and the Keeps offer no real argument to counter this, or strategy by which the article can be brought back in line with policy.If it's desirous to provide links to people opposing global warming, this can be done as a category without the necessity of creating an original research povfork, with cherry-picked, not-necessarily representative quotes - which may violate WP:BLP - which, because of the insistence on including this quotefarm, inherently violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, with dozens of POV-pushing quotes. Nothing in the deletion discussion overturns policy, and this has had more than ample chance after previous discussions to fix the problems. If core policy isn't enforceable, what is? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 15:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• • Objection to endorsements: About 45 people voted delete to 31 Keep, and of the keeps, a large number were out of policy. Furthermore, the guidelines to closing deletion discussions say that consensus should be judged on strength of argument, and that arguments that go against policy should generally be ignore. A large number, perhaps even the majority, of keeps are explicitly for reasons that violate policy, and should be disregarded.

The guidelines for deletion further go on to say:

Those are specifically the inherent problems brought up in the deletion arguments. Hence, by the deletion rules, this article should be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• On Wikipedia, consensus is what's enforceable. It's rare indeed that DRV will overrule a consensus, and I think it's very hard to fault Backslash Forwardslash for closing that debate in that way. I should tend to think in terms of Backslash Forwardslash's closure statement: work towards finding a NPOV title for the article, and be diligent in removing any unsourced or poorly-sourced material, but equally, accept that global warming is controversial and there is a strong feeling among other editors that this list serves a navigational function concerning that ongoing debate. Navigational lists are absolutely encyclopaedic, so we have a closure that's in accordance with policy, with Wikipedia's purpose, and with the debate that preceded it.

  I must admit that on a personal level, I have a great deal of sympathy for Shoemaker's Holiday's nomination, because I do recognise the very real concern that this list is a coatrack for crackpottery. But I think we already have the right result here.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  • A good majority (45 to 31) voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Well, there's more to consensus than !vote-counting. That's particularly true when the same article has been AfD'ed 4 times in succession; I should think the fact that there have been AfDs "just to make sure there's still no consensus to delete" would tend to raise the bar. We can't permit people to keep repeatedly AfDing the same content until it goes away, because it smacks of an end-run around consensus.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

It gets nominated again and again because it directly violates core policies, and the deletion guidelines specifically say it should be deleted. Saying that if enough POV-pushers defend an out-of-policy article long enough it becomes undeletable is a terrible precedent. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I do realise that's how you feel about it. Characterising this list as an "out-of-policy article" and claiming "the deletion guidelines specifically say it should be deleted" may not be entirely helpful to your case here. We do see a lot of people who feel angry or outraged at something, here at DRV, but wouldn't taking a more moderate tone and acknowledging other points of view be the more collegial approach?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 17:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- Seems like that was valid reading of the (lack of) consensus. Umbralcorax ( talk) 16:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per S Marshall. The close was not clearly erroneous. Tim Song ( talk) 16:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • See above. S Marshall's arguments go directly against the actual deletion policy. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse no consensus close per S Marshall. The article has no evident core policy problems that would mandate deletion. (Note: I've fixed a few formatting problems in the nomination.)  Sandstein  16:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Looking only at !vote totals, I don't see 60% as sufficient consensus to delete when reasonable policy arguments are advanced by both sides. Both the keep and delete !votes tended to mix content and deletion arguments, the keeps should not be discounted in isolation. Closer's decision was conservative, reasonable, and policy-based. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • DO THE DELETION GUIDELINES MEAN NOTHING HERE?!! WHY CAN'T WIKIPEDIA FOLLOW A SINGLE ONE OF ITS OWN POLICIES ANYMORE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk • contribs)

I would sincerely suggest you to take a break from this issue or maybe from whole wikipedia to calm down. I fully agree that article is garbage that should be deleted, as it is essentially wikipedians interpreting some quotes they have found somewhere, and then categorizing scientists according to their personal opinions, with editors who have different POVs trying to keep list long(to show wide worldwide dissent) or short (to show that dissent is just few handful misfits). But loosing your calm and going all CAPS LOCK is not going to help at all.-- Staberinde ( talk) 17:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• (ec) Contrary to popular belief, an argument does not become more persuasive the louder one shouts it or the more often one repeats it.  Sandstein  17:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse there was clearly no consensus to delete. - Atmoz ( talk) 17:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Close was not clearly erroneous. As I believe the reasons give for "Keep"ing were, although stated in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, actually contrary to those guidelines, I would have closed as delete, had I not voted to delete. However, I suggest "Relist" or perhaps "Nullify result" might be an appropriate result of this DRV, even though it would almost certainly not produce anything better next time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • "no consensus" already by convention permits relatively speedy renomination, and it isn't really a "result", but rather "no result, therefore do nothing". It's easy to nullify a "result", but how can we nullify a "no result"? Since relisting right now is unlikely to be productive, I suggest that we just endorse the close. Tim Song ( talk) 18:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Change !vote from "no comment" to Endorse. Although I agree with the nominator in general, there are some credible arguments toward Keep. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Hmmm, was David Shankbone on the list? A reasonable close. The keeps were not out of policy, indeed some deletes might familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Compiling our own list is not considered OR. John Z ( talk) 19:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Really. You think all these keeps are within policy, and not arguing for keeping a WP:POVFORK?

That's a big chunk of the keep votes, and there's other borderline ones in the same line. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 19:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes like that were discounted in my read of the consensus, but so too were equally weak delete arguments. You can't just ignore the votes you don't like. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 20:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict)I am not going to defend each individual "keep", e.g. ones that seem to think lists are inherently unencyclopedic. Some contain arguments which are irrelevant to policy rather than contrary to it. E.g. complaining about non-neutrality elsewhere. May be true, but not really relevant to this article. That being said, one should assume good faith and read most of these as supporting this as an important & neutral list, with claims that opposition, rather than support, comes from POV-pushing. Nothing wrong with that. For something to be a POVFORK, it has to be a fork. Do we have another article with the same topic? Once one starts playing the usually foolish game of eliminating !votes, one should do it to both sides - e.g. eliminating ones with baseless claims of intrinsic OR in editor-compiled lists, or worse. John Z ( talk) 21:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse It always interests me when after a very sharply divided debate, where there is considerable disagreement between established Wikipedians about the applicable policies, a non-consensus close is challenged. It's saying: I don't care if it looks like everyone disagreed. The people who really counted agreed -- that is, the people who think the same way i do. Myself, I might equally say that all the delete votes were against the core policy of NPOV. Given the natural variation, nominate something 4 or 5 times and it has about an even chance of being deleted, regardless of the merits. I think this non-consensus result was the aberrant one, and we'll be back to keep the next time. I suggest waiting a year. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  Actually, I think the Keep results (except the first, where the question of whether each entry was WP:SYN was not brought up) were aberrant. But that's not really relavent here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Both deletes and keeps didn't do a good show -it was kind of a WP:ILIKEIT vs WP:IDONTLIKEIT battle. However most delete arguments argued for problems which could have been solved by editing instead than deletion. This made their arguments at least as weak as many keep votes. Closure looks good to me. -- Cyclopia ^talk 22:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Good close, accurate reading of the tone of the discussion. That most of the editors involved were talking past each other is not, alas, all that unusual when no-consensus closes are made on hot topics. Ray ^Talk 22:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Community opinion is divided on this article, and I cannot see how any admin could have fairly concluded the existence of any consensus to keep or delete. Neither side's argument was substantially weaker than the other's in terms of policy. I favoured deletion, but after four AfDs it is time to accept its existence and fix it by editing. Fences& Windows 23:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse With clear, reasoned arguments on both sides (and some unsound opinions on both) and a divided editorial community, "no consensus" is the only fair verdict. Of course, the rules of Wikipedia specify that it is 100% possible and 100% accepted for a closing editor to ignore discussions and base things entirely on his or her opinion, even if every vote is against him or her. But, as utterly useless at it is, I'd like to make my 0.02. The Squicks ( talk) 00:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I though possibly defamatory content about living persons defaults to delete? Was that long discussion just a one-timer for someone wikipedians didn't like? Hipocrite ( talk) 03:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - As Hipocrite points out, possibly defamatory content about living persons should default to delete. I think that people forgot to consider that some of the problems claimed were BLP problems. --- Irbisgreif-( talk | e-mail)-( contribs) 14:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment Are these the same BLP violations concerning "a number of scientists" that ScienceApologist raised on 23 October on the article's talk page, but then said he was "not at liberty" to give any specific details about ? Or do you have other BLP violations in mind ? I see nothing else at WP:BLPN. Gandalf61 ( talk) 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment Anyone on the list is on a list with scientific luminaries like Vincent R. Gray. "List of world leaders who were vegitarians!" Hipocrite ( talk) 17:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

If there are specific BLP concerns, fix them on the page. Is this DRV another front in the ongoing BLP war? Fences& Windows 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Policy, and good sense, state that when an article is contentious and laden with BLP issues, then "no consensus" means that the closing admin should delete. I think this was a simple mistake in judgement. --- Irbisgreif-( talk | e-mail)-( contribs) 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - It is shameful that detailed, nuanced, specific opinions from scientists should result in them being lumped together into a category in which they, as individuals, may not wish to be lumped. This list is shameful. Scientists who wish to be known as opposing the mainstream will be unfairly excluded. Scientists who do not wish to be known as opposing the mainstream will be unfairly included. No encyclopedia would do it. This is against Wikipedia's policies about living people. It gives an anonymous person free reign to categorize a living, non-anonymous person. It's just plain the wrong thing to do. Flying Jazz ( talk) 17:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

This isn't a reprise of the AfD. Fences& Windows 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Maybe I should have been more clear that my view is that the AfD did not appropriately take WP:BLP into account. It is possible (I think) that editors acting in good faith really can up with a neutral definition of what "mainstream" means in this context and what "opposing" means and what "global warming" means. And applying those definitions to an article that doesn't involve living people could be fair-minded. But I think it's a mistake to violate our own policies about contentious material applied to living people. When you actually talk to people, they have such complex opinions that evolve day by day in subtle ways, and it's just not right for us to create boundaries of opinion in which to place their views and display them online--even if the boundaries are in list form instead of category form. I apologize if you've heard all that before and it just seems like a rehashing of the AfD. Too many other policy statements were being tossed around during the AfD and now, and I think the elephant in the room may have been missed. Flying Jazz ( talk) 04:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment Identifying holders of particular positions does not automatically equate to an endorsement, or a disendorsement, of their position. And a category is worse from the standpoint of BLP. A list at least allows for nuance, and is more transparent re sourcing. 140.247.5.113 ( talk) 03:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AfD decision is very solid. BLP violation nonsense strikes me as another stick to beat this list with by those who don't like it Polargeo ( talk) 09:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. Scientists objecting to the global warming theories are often cited by politicians who don't like global warming issues, and information on the matter, and what alternate theories they have, is of relevance, both scientifically and politically. A reasonable case can be made for keeping the list. Several reasonable objections were made against deleting the article. Regarding Hipocrite's comment, the material is not "possibly defamatory" if it is stringently sourced. Regarding the vote count, a majority for deletion is not the same as a consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: This is playing with BLP fire and sets up the impossible standard of continuously needing to prove a false. To make the list, one has to 1) be a "scientist", but of what field? Notable meet a subjective definition of "opposing". Opposing some? All? How many degrees? Cooling? 2) address peacock term "mainstream assessment", and 3) come to a consensus definition of "global warming". Since any one of the three is basically impossible, saying you could keep up LBP standards on all of them regardless of any changes in any article? No. This is why it's always possible defamation... we don't have BLPs that well monitored. btw, comment vs an Oppose since I will entirely admit that it looks especially foolish to add incidental weight to persons on this list by flagging them as fringe compared to the whole for this topic; but I would have these same comments and distaste for any forked group of subjective to instant BLP updates. ...I also didn't know Wikipedia was a collection of lists of people who disagreed with things. WP:ALLORNOTHING isn't precedent you want to set as okay for ANY subjective list, to say nothing of BLPs. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn AfD is not a popular vote and there are multiple policy reasons to delete this article. Simonm223 ( talk) 22:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment The article has also been AfD no less than four times, of which two in the last year, and all these times it has been kept. I know that consensus may change, but this DRV seems to me a case of hope to make long-dead horses alive. -- Cyclopia ^talk 22:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: The article should be kept because it violates no Wikipedia policies and meets a need for Wikipedia readers. Students who are researching global warming may want to locate scientists who disagree with the IPCC so they can learn the scientific arguments these scientists put forward. The article makes an attempt to categorize different views in order to give the field some structure. I notice a few things about the article I would change, but the attempt to delete seems to be more about censorship than serving the needs of our readers. It would be much better to improve the article rather than delete it. And why has Roger Pielke's name been removed when he specifically gave verbage he endorsed to explain his view? RonCram ( talk) 04:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• comment this "review" is a bad-faith attempt to kill the page, and fails the test of what DR is for: This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. Nothing new has been presented; the closer interpreted the debate correctly. This DR should have been removed William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Process was correctly followed, result has been confirmed multiple times by now. DR is not an AfD rerun - bringing the same arguments is pointless disputation. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 15:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The closer correctly interpreted a no-consensus. Many delete voters appear to believe that the article inherently violates WP:NPOV. I disagree. There are many lists on Wikipedia of adherents to a particlar contrversial set of beliefs, but are far less well-cited than this article, e.g, Fundamentalist_Christians#List_of_notable_American_fundamentalists, Category:American communists, Holocaust_denial#Notable_Holocaust_deniers. These lists do not in any way imply a favorable POV on these viewpoints (Addendum: nor undue weight WP:DUE) or their counter-viewpoints. Jwesley ₇₈ 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The AfD should've focused more on WP:SYN (although several people did mention it). It might be difficult to show that this article does not violate it. Jwesley ₇₈ 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• I think the WP:SYN/ WP:OR argument appears to fail upon inspection of the individual entries, i.e., they are well-cited. These potential WP:SYN/ WP:OR issues can be dealt with individually. Jwesley ₇₈ 21:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment The example lists do not contain the WP:BLP violations of this particular list for two reasons. First, the lists cited are mostly self-declarative. A member of the list becomes a Holocaust denier by denying the Holocaust, etc. The definition of "Holocaust" is not a critical issue because there is general consensus among rational people and dictionary definitions about what the words "Holocaust," "Fundamentalist," and "Communist" mean. A dictionary does not contain an entry on "mainstream opposition of scientific assessment of global warming." This means that editors here must create and debate a definition and apply that definition as a label to living people, many of whom will not agree with the label chosen for them. Even if it is an NPOV definition, it will be one of countless possibilities. Second, the example lists named do not further violate WP:BLP by containing sub-lists with additional definitions and categories. Flying Jazz ( talk) 23:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I am not saying this should be overturned because of bad reading of consensus. The determination of no-consensus is 100% correct. The reason to overturn and delete the article is because no-consensus should have defaulted to delete, not keep, since there are BLP issues (Well explained here) involved. --- Irbisgreif-( talk | e-mail)-( contribs) 00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC) reply

  There is no such policy. If the article has problem, fix it. We have the option of closing AfDs for borderline notable people as delete if the subject requests this. This is not a bio, the topic is not borderline notable, and we have no indication that any of the subjects has requested deletion (which, since this is not a bio, would at best get them deleted of the list, not get the whole article deleted). -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 00:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Sportspeople convicted of a crime ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I wasted two hours creating this cat without any knowledge of this prior presumably precedent setting Cfd, which dates from a year and a half ago. Good Olfactory just came along and used Cyde bot to delete the lot, didn't bother telling me, and flipped me off when I asked him to review it. This category is a valid category imo, I would not have wasted the time otherwise, the arguments in this cited prior Cfd discussion, are few, and weak. The only argument that is in any way reasonable, is BLP, and given the fact we already categorise Policemen, Clergy, and Politicians in this way in Category:Criminals by occupation (and there are others dotted around like British Peers), where is the problem? There can be no argument that a convicted sporstman is not as notable or defining as a convicted politician. The fact that we already have a list is not an argument for not having a category, per WP:CLS, and in actual fact, in the short time this cat was allowed to exist, the list was being updated as it was no longer a pointless orphan, and the cat was also added to other people not on the list. I want this unilateral, and frankly brutal, deletion overturned, and if necessary, a new Cfd covering all criminals by occupation categories opened. MickMacNee ( talk) 08:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Coming to DRV calling previous decisions "brutal" isn't generally a way of endearing yourself to people here. WP:CLS permits, rather than requiring, a category to go alongside a list, and I remain unconvinced as to whether a category, which generates substantial BLP issues because it can't be cited unlike a list, would be good here. Stifle ( talk) 09:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  It can be sourced in the way that any other category already is - if you don't see a source in the article, you remove the category. If you are worried about BLP, focus on truly dodgy categories, such as whether Lee Hughes really has converted to Islam, rather than categories that have a clear yes/no outcome - either they were convicted of a crime, or they weren't. Quite apart from being a problem, this category is actually helpfull for tracking articles which will be be at risk to blp violations. And I would like to know what usefulness you think a list on its own serves, when you cannot navigate to it from all of those people's articles that are on it? (or, just because a category is not permitted, does that mean See Also links are also barred? If no, why? What's the difference? If yes, then let's just stop pretending that we are supposed to connect related articles). And don't you think the blp minded editors of those articles would be interested to know, and hence be able to monitor, the list? Or is it better for BLP that it sits as an unnnoticed and unwatched oprhan. It was half an hour before I found it when I started looking for it. Not letting anyone know it exists is not the right way to enforce BLP. I'm sorry if the word 'brutal' upsets you, but that's what I call an unnotified unilateral deletion of two hours work, that nobody could ever have known would not be allowed, based on Politicians, Police and Cergy, and god knows how many others, already existing, and with a list existing. If an editor with two years time and thousands of edits can make such a mistake, then how long do you think anybody else is going to stick around here to figure out wp:cat? The irony is, on another given day, I bet someone would come and argue that having a list is the BLP violation, and that we should have a category to keep the referencing on the bio articles. Nobody can win in this madhouse environment, if they are here to help readers and create navigational aids. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Well, I'm certainly not a fan of the "OMG someone said BLP quick let's delete" attitude. And of course I'm one of those who thinks CfD has serious structural issues. But there was an identifiable consensus to delete there, and the procedure does seem to have been followed correctly, so in this case it's an endorse from me.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 11:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per the previous two, and per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Kbdank71 12:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The consensus was clear enough. Tim Song ( talk) 13:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Couldn't be closed any other way. Question though: if someone wants to recreate an article that has been deleted, they can do so if they've fixed the previous problem. If it is believed that consensus was at fault, where does one go to recreate a CAT? Here I assume. So should we be looking at something other than just consensus? Should the nom be directed to go back to CfD and request it be reconsidered? There needs be a process. Hobit ( talk) 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Permit creation on the basis of conformity with other categories. There are blp issues, but they apply to the other categories also and can be resolved on the talk pages of the articles concerned, or of the category. if there is a list, there should be a category, if only to catch the ones omitted from the list. There would need to be a very special reason to not do so. If we need a procedural reason to ask for a rediscussion, it is that the previous one was not adequate--as is the case for many cfd discussions. As hobit says, there must be some way to change a decision if opinion changes. Per IAR, and NOT BUREAUCRACY, if there is no mechanism set up for doing so for categories, it should be done wherever suitable--and this place is as suitable as any other, since a number of those who have made the sometimes unfortunate decision to work on screening deletions watch it. S Marshall, I wonder if you have any ideas where to discuss it further. I think the alternative to finding a place to review is to abolish Cfd,since its decisions remain those of a small coteries and over-local consensus. Or at leas tto fully discuss new issues with the person who complains. I think a bot for the purpose is unacceptable. DGG ( talk ) 14:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I would like to discuss this problem on the talk page for Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken, but of course the said category was deleted and depopulated against consensus as a result of a CfD discussion. When we've overturned that and our discussion space has been restored, I think that would be the optimum place.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Anything wrong with using WT:CFD? A user category probably isn't a suitable place to discuss change as has been proposed. -- Kbdank71 16:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I wasn't asking particularly where we should discuss changing our policy--I think that's clearly WT:CFD. or WT:Deletion policy., I asked where we should at this point discuss reversing a particular CfD decision, which is the question before us at the moment DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• comment- I'd like to say to overturn based on WP:IAR, but I doubt that would go over well. I know the consensus was for deletion, but I'm in agreement that the CFD process is deeply flawed. If it isn't overturned, and if the category of Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken ever gets re-created, add my name to that list as well. Umbralcorax ( talk) 16:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - based upon the guideline WP:OVERCAT, specifically the subsection Trivial Insertion. Intersections between two unique and unrelated datasets should be avoided. Many thanks, Gazi moff 21:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  See my reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes (2nd nomination). This is hardly a case of obvious OVERCAT. MickMacNee ( talk) 14:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  I've seen your response there, and I'll raise you a WP:NOTDIR criterion 6. This is a typical example of WP:OVERCAT. The two datasets are unrelated. Many thanks, Gazi moff 18:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  An opinion which is quite easily disproved, per my reply there. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  I have responded to you there. I assure you though, my logic is quite sound. Many thanks, Gazi moff 23:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion (deleting admin) per previous discussions. (The nominator says I "flipped [him] off". Where I come from that means giving someone the "f-you" finger. I did not do this. I said I would look into it, but it would have to wait, since I was taking a break over my spring weekend, which I am. The user didn't want to wait, so all I can say is I endorse my action and the previous discussions.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  I call this flipping me off. If you don't, then you need to reconsider how you talk to people. There is no point endorsing a deletion outcome that you yourself started way back when, and wrongly said that having a list was a fine replacement (now being challenge at Afd) (I note that nobody has yet repsonded to explain how any reader is supposed to get to the currently orphaned list, if it is considered a valid article). Categories are first and foremost, navigation tools, they are not articles. And that original Afd, attracted a massive three other commentators, with one line opinions, one of which was just 'agree', another said 'who cares'. Maybe this sort of laxity passes as a precedent in Cfd not requiring even a relisting or wider notification at say wp:blp, but once challenged, it cannot simply be automatically endorsed as if it is a cast iron example of consensus that can be pulled out of the hat to make unnnotified unilateral deletions 18 months later. MickMacNee ( talk) 14:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Considering the post of yours he was replying to, that seems fairly polite to me. It does imply that he wasn't taking you very seriously, but if you'd posted that rant on my talk page, I wouldn't take you seriously either.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 00:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Yeah, I was partly trying to defuse the obvious anger being transmitted. But MickMacNee, if you seriously think it was the equivalent of telling you to "fuck off", then I'm afraid you're probably projecting your own feelings onto me, because that's not what it meant at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Don't even attempt to tell me what I was thinking, your meaning was quite clear. MickMacNee ( talk) 02:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• I guess you wouldn't like me to point out the hilarious irony in your statement immediately above——how you don't want me to tell you what you were thinking but you're quite happy to tell me what ... oh, never mind. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Deleted with consensus and for good reason. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Since when was 'who cares' a good reason. That's pathetic. MickMacNee ( talk) 02:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• You have my sympathies. “Not encyclopedic - or - who cares?” are not good reasons and they tend to be insulting. However,

Nom: “trivial intersection”, suggesting prisons sentences are incidental to these people.

Bashereyre: weak rationale, but acceptable.

Carlossuarez46: OCAT, similar to nom’s “trivial intersection”

KleenupKrew: “ritual defamation” alludes to BLP concerns.

As category creator, were you not notified of the CfD? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Admin made closure in line with expressed consensus and with sound policy/guideline backing. Absolutely no reasons given to suggest confusion or error on part of admin, not any compelling argument to allow re-creation. The wider question of criminals-by-occupation could well benefit from consideration however - I encourage nomination of these categories so that categorisation of this area can be examined and debated. -- Xdamr ^talk 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• I'm guessing it won't happen though. It will be allowed to exist quite happily, fooling other stupid idiots that there is any sense to categorisation here. MickMacNee ( talk) 03:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Actually, I've been meaning to get around to nominating these for some time now. It's on my "to-do" list, you might say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion; no good reason to overturn the prior CFD, and there is hardly a comprehensive scheme of criminals by occupation categories out there that would justify recreating this one. The three that do exist—police officers, clergy, and politicians—all implicitly link the profession to the crime because they are positions of public trust, and in most cases the crimes will probably involve abuses of that trust and position. Not so with sportspeople and crimes, who are in the public eye as a species of celebrity. We do not appear to categorize celebrities or entertainers by whether they have been convicted of crimes, and I don't believe we should start. postdlf ( talk) 23:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply