Category:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Several hours of my good faith work was speedily deleted without discussion because the category had been previously deleted with virtually no discussion. The guideline suggested by the nominator seems to contradict a great deal of accepted practice in categorization. Dystopos ( talk) 16:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. No doubt your efforts to create and populate this category were in good faith, as was the effort to depopulate it and delete it. The relevant guideline is at WP:OCAT#AWARD; the general idea is that awards categories tend to overproliferate on articles, and so should just be limited to the highest honors in particular fields. I have no judgment on where this particular honor falls. There are two other state sports hall of fame categories: Category:Oregon Sports Hall of Fame and Category:Texas Sports Hall of Fame. It's possible that some state halls of fame may be more worthy of categories than others, which would justify having categories for some but not all; or all may be equally important such that either all should have categories or none. postdlf ( talk) 21:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Allow me to register my opinion that it is helpful to Wikipedia's users to have the choice of using or ignoring the category rather than to have that choice made for them. "Proliferation" of verifiable information is, in my opinion, the whole point of building an online encyclopedia. The aesthetic judgments of those who disdain "over proliferation" are counterproductive. -- Dystopos ( talk) 03:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• The problem is not an aesthetic one, but rather a practical one we have learned from years of experience with categories. If categories are not limited to the most important ones, then the swarm of category tags on a page becomes overwhelming, and the resulting signal to noise ratio makes it extremely difficult for a user to find the category he's likely to be looking for. So not every verifiable fact should be categorized (which would in effect recapitulate the entire article), nor should categories duplicate every article's connection to every other article (which is what "what links here" is for). Maybe you think we should also rely upon a WP user to just "ignore" any information in an article's introductory section rather than editing it to the most defining facts? But that doesn't seem very helpful. Filtering and focusing is an important part of editing. postdlf ( talk) 16:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Relist at CfD for more discussion. Wikipedia:OCAT#Award_recipients doesn't trump having a discussion, and Dystopos wants one. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the speedy as a pretty standard usage of G4. The identical category was deleted back in February through CfD, and the new version had no substantive differences. That said, I've no serious objection to raising this matter at CfD again- the discussion wasn't one of CfD's most through ones, even though the result is pretty much standard. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 07:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the speedy. I don't see how circumstances have changed since the original CFD to make it invalid. -- Kbdank71 19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

It's not that circumstances have changed, it's that there wasn't enough discussion about the circumstances at the time. -- Dystopos ( talk) 23:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

How much is "enough"? Consider CFD has always had trouble getting people to participate, the CFD was open for a full week and nobody wanted to keep it. How much more of a unanimous discussion was needed? (BTW, since I can't tell if this DRV is for the speedy or the original CFD, for these reasons I'll endorse my close of the CFD). -- Kbdank71 02:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I guess my biggest question is, what would be said in a new CFD that wasn't said before? Would someone be able to counter the characterization of this as just a "minor sporting award"? Could someone shed some light here on the significance of state sports halls of fame overall, and the significance to an athlete of being inducted into one? And should we be considering a new CFD for the Oregon and Texas categories I noted above, regardless of whether this Alabama one gets another chance? postdlf ( talk) 15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Inviting more review of the original CFD, in which only the nominator and one other person participated, might provide more perspective on those questions. As induction is granted for long-term achievements rather than some specific performance supports the notion that it's not really a minor award (unlike, say " Category:Albanian beauty pageant winners" or " Category:Apple Design Award winners". I think it could be argued that induction into the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame is a clear indicator of notability. 3/4ths of its inductees already have articles and the others certainly seem to merit new ones. -- Dystopos ( talk) 18:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The current state of the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame article doesn't give me much confidence in it. It has no neutral third-party references (i.e., ones that aren't motivated to promote the Hall of Fame). The article states that one of the inductees was Jesse Owens; his article mentions no connection with Alabama beyond birthplace, and so nothing for which he is notable was done there...which doesn't give me much confidence in the relevance of this honor to the inductees beyond any "Sportspeople from Foo" category. So my recommendation is instead to focus on improving the article to the point that it can clearly justify a category; I don't think it does at present. postdlf ( talk) 23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I wasn't aware that the quality of an article was justification for creating a category. I had intended my hours of work building up this category as a prelude to working on improving the article, but instead it has been a prelude to arguing against deleting verifiable information on the premise that some articles have too many category links. -- Dystopos ( talk) 03:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Relist: I don't think it's correct to characterize a hall of fame as the same as an "award." A hall of fame indicates a lifetime achievement, and hence, more notability, than winning a single award. And not to pull WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we have lots of categories for other halls of fame inductees, such as Category:Country Music Hall of Fame inductees, Category:Oklahoma Music Hall of Fame inductees, Category:Motorcycle Hall of Fame inductees, Category:Science Fiction Hall of Fame; in fact, I just found a whole bunch more here: Category:Halls of fame inductees. I don't think there is a problem with overcategorization as it relates to halls of fame, because if the hall of fame is populated with notable people, then by definition, the category is itself probably worthwhile. For example, if someone created a category for "City of Topeka Sushi Chef Hall of Fame inductees"--most of the members are not likely to be notable, and therefore the category itself is not notable. I would propose exempting Halls of Fame from the Awards overcategorization guideline. -- Esprqii ( talk) 17:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Relist at CFD. Both the recent CSD and earlier CFD deletions were perfectly valid. And this probably won't survive another CFD. But here we have a good faith contributor who has put a lot of work into a category and now sees the work deleted because of the outcome of a debate he new nothing about and that had two participants. We should at least allow the contributor to have input into a discussion on the deletion of the category. I recognise this is largely IAR but here I don't think the purpose served by striclty applying the rule (G4) in this case outweighs the benefit of giving this discussion another run. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 03:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Long experience of what happens at CfD tells me there's no point in overturning or relisting a CfD discussion. DRV has overturned CfD before, and it's never ended well.

  The key to understanding CfD is that participation is restricted to the relatively few users who care, which means most discussions are closed with little participation; and also that every CfD is a judgment call, because CfD doesn't have objectively-assessable criteria in the same way that, say, AfD does. This means that if you send this back to CfD, essentially the same users will have the same discussion and they'll reach the same conclusion. A different admin will close it in exactly the same way, and the user who raised the DRV will still be none the wiser about why. It's a very, very longstanding problem, and I don't know how to deal with it.— S Marshall T/ C 13:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• I think one might consider that a person willing to have put in hours of work to create and populate a category is effectively making an argument about whether he or she believes that work to be of value to Wikipedia. Perhaps that effort should count for at least as much as the quick jottings of those who lurk at CfD. We've now had at least two people who have labored to create this category and two people who have participated in the discussion to delete it. -- Dystopos ( talk) 14:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• That view's very understandable. But equally, if we're to have categories, then someone needs to decide how they should be named and organised, and which should be deleted. So there must be a CfD process, and it will never be well-attended because so few users care.

  Personally I advise against ever creating a category. Just write a list. I find the criteria for what's permissible in a list a great deal more intelligible, and if someone decides your list needs to be deleted then at least you can keep it in your userspace.— S Marshall T/ C 15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: Perhaps instead of relisting this specific category, why not relist it more generically, eg, Category:Foo hall of fame inductees. You would get more interest and discussion on that. If the rule is that halls of fame are by definition awards and lead to overcategorization, then let's get rid of all of them. If there is some guideline, like a national hall of fame is OK, but state halls of fame are not, or if music halls of fame are OK, but sports halls are not, let's work that out. -- Esprqii ( talk) 16:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse speedy deletion; this is precisely why the G4 procedure exists—to avoid having to revisit every discussion every time a new user decides it would be a good idea to create the same thing that was previously deleted and the content and facts behind the content are unchanged. Categories for state- and city-level sports halls of fame in the U.S. have been deleted often: VA, Philly, NC, Buffalo, etc. —it's nothing personal against Alabama, obviously. (Just wait until we can review the deletion of the no-doubt-impending Alabama–Greenland relations article—that will be fun.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  Would it be nice if these G4 category deletions included a link in the log comment to WP:What? My hard work has just been G4'ed!? Even if it just redirected to WT:CFD? For whatever human illogical reason, many people don't want to ask the admin questions on an admin User_talk page. I would still prefer category creation to involve an extra step (click) confirming that the creator knows what they are doing. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. What I fail to get is this. When one tries to create a previously deleted category, there's this big honking pink box that tells you that the category has been previously deleted and a pointer to the CFD discussion. Now when re-creating an article that was previously deleted at AFD, it's theoretically possible to address the issues that led to the deletion of the first article in the content of the new article. This is not possible when creating a category. Wouldn't it be better to challenge the CFD close, first with the closing admin and then here at DRV, before putting in "hours of hard work" just to watch it all go *POOF*? -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• If there was a big honking pink box shown at the time, I must have missed it. Since 99% of the work populating a category takes place in the article pages, not the category page. --16:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Click on the redlink for the category: Category:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. It shows up right above the editing window, with the header "A page with this title has previously been deleted." All previously deleted content automatically shows this notice whenever someone tries to recreate it. You created the category first and then populated it, so you would have seen the category page before populating it with articles. postdlf ( talk) 17:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• As I said, I must have missed it. I really didn't have any doubt the category was justified and I used the Oregon Sports Hall of Fame category as the basis for where to categorize it. I probably just pasted it in and moved on without noticing the big honking pink box. It came as a surprise to find that consensus hasn't developed around the value of this type of category. -- Dystopos ( talk) 17:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• I've often wondered if the big honking pink box needs to be made even bigger and more honking. Because when users want to create something, they seem to turn their honking detectors off—I always hear after the fact that they "must have missed it". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• I think that's right. When you think you know what it is that you want to do, you focus (think tunnel vision). I don't think there is any more to do with the advice at Editing Category:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. The edit box is already well below the scroll line for me. Perhaps if this text "Wikipedia does not have a category with this exact title. To avoid redundancy, please browse the existing categories before creating this page. " additional said "please ask at WP:CFD if you have any questions." I note that I am unlikely to ask a "robot", "Clydebot", questions, given that I already have a reluctance to talk on admin talk pages. The original deleter may be from long ago and might not be expected to be immediately responsive. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• This may all be productive discussion if we assume that there is indeed no place for such a category in this free encyclopedia. I opened this conversation, however, hoping that our editorial community be given a chance to re-examine that assumption. -- Dystopos ( talk) 01:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• The challenging of the poorly explained category conventions is something to be encouraged. However, I do not see a serious challenge being made here. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• The problem with asking for a re-evaluation as I see it is that the assumption has been re-examined a number of times at CFD, and always with the same result. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• How many times? I only saw one "discussion" with a total of two editorial voices represented, both of whom seem to be right at home in the deletion department. -- Dystopos ( talk) 03:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• I was including this category and other state-level halls of fame (sporting and otherwise) in my use of "many", since a category for the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame is quite similar to a category for the Oregon Sports Hall of Fame. I don't know the exact number, but if I were to guess I'd say around ten or a dozen times. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Chinthana Dharmadasa ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) This article has been deleted without any discussion. And how i've provided with more references to prove the validity of subject in deletion admin's Talk Page. But the deletion admin refused to restored and instructed to list it here.

• permit recreation if.... I am not sure about notability, but it is sufficient informative that it passes G11. However, it has no external references at all , except to his facebook page and an advertisement for his film. There will need to be some better from sources unrelated to him, such as reviews of his films, if it is going to be able to stay in Wikipedia. If you have such references, I think you can just rewrite the article--omitting some sentences that sound like advertising because of the adjectives. If you don;t have the references, there's no point in trying. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G11. Userfy, Incubate, or restore and send to AFD. I'm looking at the cached version and IMHO it's not spam. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and restore. Well outside the scope of "exclusively promotional" and does not fall into any other CSD category. But I agree this article shoud need some work with reliable sources to survive an AfD. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 02:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Note: A userspace draft has now been provided and in my view it is acceptable enough for us to wave it onto the mainspace. I have no views on notability: that really should be judged at AfD not here.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 03:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Undelete due to good faith appeal from an editor in good standing over a speedied article not involving offensive material. This should be automatic. List at AfD if there is disagreement over whether it is unacceptable promotion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Same as DGG, permit recreation if properly sourced. I'm aware this isn't strictly in accordance with speedy deletion process, but it is pure process wonkery to overturn a deletion of an article that, in its deleted state, hasn't a snowball's chance of passing AFD. Stifle ( talk) 08:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Regardless of the eventual fate of the article, it still would be helpful for a close here that says "it wasn't spam". -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Ok i agree.. There were only few references mentioned at the page at the time.. But now i've created an "Special My Page" here. It has more references and i've re-wrote some part to remove the "advertisement-like" parts. Can you please review it and allow me to take that page to public? -- Nidahasa ( talk) 10:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• delete

Those references are published by the owner of article. I can see, those are same self promotion descriptions where it was appear in personal website. Creating a one film how do we can say as notable and impotence for encyclopedia. (wipe 17:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipeouting ( talk • contribs)

• All the references (except the link to official page of his film) in this page are from newspapers and other reliable sources. And how many films one should create to be notable for you. There are plenty of famous directors who had directed only one film in their lifetime. -- Nidahasa ( talk) 17:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Not unsalvageably promotional, tone issues easily resolvable through routine editing processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hallowicked ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Article deleted in January 2007 and has since been salted by Akradecki, who is currently inactive. Today, I believe he is notable enough to pass WP:ATHLETE as he has made appearances for notable independent promotions such as Chikara, Ring of Honor, Combat Zone Wrestling and Full Impact Pro and currently wrestles on pay-per-view for Dragon Gate USA. Has also held championships in various companies. I've re-written an article for him that can be seen at User:TheFBH/sandbox. TheFBH ( talk) 02:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt with so much time that has passed, article should be rewritten if someone wishes. Then, if someone feels it should be deleted, it could be sent to AfD. Dew Kane ( talk) 14:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• I agree. A good faith user wants to create an article, and this is a wiki. Unsalt without prejudice to subsequent AfD.— S Marshall T/ C 20:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Unsalt and move draft to mainspace. The userspace article clearly overcomes the debate on the old article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Azmyth ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The band Azmyth is indeed notable WP:BAND. They meet at least three of the requirements.

The Band has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. OCALA, Orange Springs, Florida The band has won or placed in a major music competition.Pat Traver's Battle Of The Bands / Shredder Shootout (2009)(Notable Resources were on page.)(Was judged by several high caliber judges including Mark Smith, who wrote the score for "The Last Of The Mohicans)(There are additional references to back this up)The band has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. " The Regular Guys Show" (Atlanta) in 2003 for over a half an hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Positiveoutlook5 ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and restore. Actually WP:BAND is irrelevant for speedy deletion. All that is required is that the article made a credible claim to the band's significance or importance. That claim was credibly made here, eg performances and competitions. Whether the band meets WP:BAND can be discussed at AFD if anyone is inclined to nominate it, but this wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 07:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Undelete and send to AFD. Most likely doesn't meet WP:BAND but my reading of the cached version shows a weak assertion of IoS. Let the community make the call. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 12:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Unaware of how to nominate article on AFD I am unaware of how to post on this page. The article should have indeed been put up for deletetion initially, instead of speedy deletion. The claim was indeed credibly made. I also don't know how to undelete the page and nominate it for review-- Nascarman456 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascarman456 ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  You don't need to worry about how to nominate it; once this discussion is closed after seven days by an administrator, if the consensus is to undelete it was send it to AFD, the administrator will do so. Stifle ( talk) 15:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Undelete. The article did at least assert notability for this band. I take no position on whether it needs to be sent to AfD upon restoration; whoever thinks it should be sent to AfD can do that if they want. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as inappropriate speedy, as noted above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy without prejudice to a subsequent AfD per Ron Ritzman. Not a valid A7. However, I think it's fair to set Positiveoutlook5's expectations correctly in this. The article is sourced mainly to myspace, facebook, blogs and youtube, and AfD won't tolerate that; they'll insist on independent, reliable sources and quite likely, delete if no such sources are found.— S Marshall T/ C 20:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  That is true, but the solid foundation of the article was based on newspapers, news sites, and magazines. I have found a lot of other reliable resources to add, but can't at the moment due to the page being deleted. How exactly do we go about getting the reliable resources, such as the people the band recorded with? They did record, and write with notable people, but i'm not sure where to find the resources for it. Most of the facebook links were to personal things i think, so do those just need to be removed if the page is reinstated?-- Positiveoutlook5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Positiveoutlook5 ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Ultimately it is the responsibility of the people who want to write the article to do the research. If you want to compile the reliable sources now before the article is restored, you can create a page in your userspace (at User:Positiveoutlook5/Azmyth) and compile there information you have found in newspapers, magazines, and news sites along with the source each piece of information came from. Then when the article is restored, you will have that information available along with the source for each fact. In regard to who the band recorded with, you will have to figure out what sources there are that confirm that Azmyth recorded with them. Once we know what those sources are, we can judge how reliable they are. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply