Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was properly tagged, since the other nomination on the 14th was not tagged, and should be left to run its course, since it was properly formulated, unlike the unproperly formulated request on the 14th, which left editors unknowing that anything was happening. The category had a CFD banner attached for this nomination Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). As this is a current news event, people would have seen it when going through the category. Notice was also given at Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake about happenings with the category, dealing with this request. This should be reopened and let run, since the other nomination was not publicized. 76.66.200.154 ( talk) 10:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

This category was never tagged Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), as such, many editors concerned with the category never got wind of it, as evidenced by the fact that longtime contributor user:TexasAndroid didn't know about it, even though he was actively discussing the use of the category (see Category talk:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake). As this is a current news event, people would have noticed and participated if it had been properly formulated, unless Deletion Debates are a walled garden that only deletion patrollers should know about. This should be reopened and relisted, since people were not informed of its existence. 76.66.200.154 ( talk) 10:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment from CfD closer. The instructions on the DRV page says "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look." That did not happen in this case.
  When I closed the second CFD, I was unaware that the first one had not been properly tagged. However, even if I had been aware of that, I don't think it would have made much difference to the close, because there was little point in re-running the previous discussion. The closer of the previous CFD had recommended revisiting the subject later, when the subject has settled down a bit more. As I noted in the closure, there is nothing to prevent the creation of a more focused category for victims of the earthquake.
  Looking at it now, renaming "people associated with" to "victims of" should not be left to a bot, because people in the "associated with" category may not actually be victims. So whatever happens, some manual recategorisation will be needed ... and that makes this DRV rather pointless, because whatever is decided here the outcome will still be somebody manually checking the category and recategorising as appropriate. Why run a DRV process when no CFD or DRV decision is needed to create a Category:Victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  Why run a DRV? I believe that, from 76...'s perspective, getting rid of the "People associated" category is as important, or more important, as creating a "Victims of" category. For me, I'm kinda at a "Shrug. Whatever" phase over the "People associated" category. It's served it's purpose, but 76... has persuaded me that it has major problems/flaws for which I cannot provide solutions. So while I'm not eager to see it go away, I find myself unable to strongly defend it.

  On a related note, since people keep mentioning that there's nothing preventing the creation of a separate Victim category, and doing such was in my original long-range plans when I created the "People" category, I've declared my intention to go ahead and do such within the next 24 hours. For now it'll be a sub-cat of the People category. If the People category is eventually deleted, the Victims category can move up. One way or another, getting the Victims out of the People category will make the eventual fate of the People category a little less clouded by the presence of the Victims in it. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  I have now completed the split/move. All entries for people killed in the quake or from injuries received in it, have been moved down to the new category. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 21:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• My bad for not noticing that the category wasn't tagged when I closed the first CFD. The best result might be to treat the whole thing as a nullity so that anyone can start over with another one at any time. postdlf ( talk) 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  Nullifying both is now fine by me. Now that the victims of the quake have been recategorised, any new discussion can focus on the non-victims left in the the "People associated with" category, and my concerns above about bot recategorisation don't apply. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse BrownHairedGirl's decision to procedurally close the second CfD based on the information she had at the time was the correct one. If the new listing was because the category wasn't tagged the first time around, the nominator should have made that explicit. Obviously the next CfD should occur while the category is tagged; these two can both be nullified, as agreed above, and the issue can be revisited if anyone's interested. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 04:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Relist CfD is indeed a walled garden, and a big part of the CfD game appears to be ensuring that no one outside the cloistered discussion group should be able to participate. That the initial CfD was never properly tagged on the category in question raises a fundamental issue of the legitimacy of the propriety of the original close and makes the second close moot. Alansohn ( talk) 02:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply

  Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by accidental oversight. The second CfD did not mention the tagging issue, so BrownHairedGirl had no reason to suspect that there could be any issue with the first CfD. Also, the claim of conspiracy ("walled garden", "CfD game") aside, the claim that BrownHairedGirl's actions involve an effort to prevent anyone from participating in CfD seems to be contradicted by the extant evidence (e.g., notifying WikiProjects here, here, and here—a step that is not only not required, but downright uncommon). I realize that you and she have butted heads numerous times in the past at CfD, but I would urge you (and the same applies to everyone, of course) to avoid automatically assuming the worst about her at every opportunity. Cheers, – Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 22:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse agreement that both should just be treated as a nullity now that the category has been divided. This seems like a spent issue; I don't think a DRV was necessary to resolve things. The category could be renominated at any time, of course. Users need to assume good faith and not suggest that administrators who close CFD discussions are attempting to prevent other users from participating. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - From the point of view of adherence to procedure, the correct way to have dealt with an out-of-process "no consensus" close ("out-of-process" because the category was not tagged) would have been to contact the editor who closed the discussion; then, in the unlikely event that the closer was unwilling to relist the discussion, the next step would have been Wikipedia:Deletion review. From a non-procedural point of view, Category:Victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake has been created and there seems to be consensus (at least, there is agreement from both closers) that a follow-up discussion of the associated with category can be initiated at any time. 76... raises a valid point, but the issue is basically moot now. – Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 22:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Barack Sotero ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Barack Obama's stepfather has the surname of "Soetero", so this is not a nonsense redirect, nor is it an implausible typo. It odes not qualify under CSD-R3. 76.66.200.154 ( talk) 06:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

So? Obama did not take the name Sotero, so there's no reasonable explanation for someone searching for him by that name. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 13:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Um, right. Endorse, good speedy. If someone somehow learned the name of Obama's stepfather, they would have known Obama's name already. Tim Song ( talk) 13:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse there is no resonable scenerio that anyone looking for Barack Obama would type Barack Sotero. J04n( talk page) 13:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Proper application of WP:CSD#G3. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#R3. This fits the definition of "implausible misnomer" to a T. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 04:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• endorse I was actually about to argue that this was a reasonable search term and point out that it had a lot of google hits but when I googled it I found that it has 532 which is not nearly enough for that sort of argument to hold water. Unlikely search term. JoshuaZ ( talk) 04:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn This is neither G3 nor R3. The above editors have taken far too narrow a view of "implausible", there's no particular harm (e.g., POV) to having such a redirect, and redirects are cheap. Jclemens ( talk) 17:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I think there is a POV though. The Sotero name is used generally when websites are trying to be nasty, similar to ones with feel a need to emphasize his middle name. JoshuaZ ( talk) 22:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - that's just not his name. Chutznik ( talk) 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply