Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 10

Kuririn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The keep comments had nothing to back them up. First, they claimed he was notable in DBZ, and therefore WP notable. This is not true. One other said AfD is not a place for cleanup — this is true, but there was no indication the article met criteria for inclusion, cleanup was not an issue. The other keep rationales claimed there were lots of sources that could be added. However, even after I asked several times, no legitimate sources were provided. Finally, there was an exchange between myself and another editor, and I don't believe he demonstrated that his version of the notability criteria was correct. There were deletion-supporting comments addressing lack of sourcing (both primary and external), in-universe writing styles, and notability. All of these are based in guideline and policy, and they were not refuted. I (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure A main character in a popular series. Deletion nomination instead of article repair where it's obviously possible reeks of WP:POINT. JuJube 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure - as per main character in a popular cartoon series. Most intermediate edits between removal of AFD notice and now, show mostly reverts of other users comments. Possibly an effect of the AFD. Rudget _zŋ 11:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. It would have been wrong to delete the article on the back of that sort of AfD. There was no clear-cut sway to deletion and no agreement that the subject was real-world insignificant. I do note that there was little effort to add sources during and since, however, but AfD sometimes has a chilling effect (the deleters would have done well to more forthrightly challenge the "i don't want to till it's kept" mantra). However, I would suggest that the article may face a serious possibility of deletion in future if efforts are not made to demonstrate the claims in the AfD immediately. Finally, bringing an article to AfD and in the nomination asking for a merge is wrong in the first place. Splash - tk 01:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure The consensus at afd was pretty clear: This article was worthy of inclusion because he is a major character in an extremely notable cartoon series. I too am troubled with the lack of sources, but DRV's goal is not to have another discussion on the notability of the article, but to determine if any errors were made in the close. As it appears that the close determined the consensus correctly there is no reason to overturn it. TonyBallioni 14:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The way these things sometimes work, unfortunately, is the first AfD brings a flood of keeps, but no references. The second AfD might bring the same, but more likely with different results. I suggest posting yourself an automatic email reminder to relist the article at AfD on or after 2 February 2008. Here's a reference to "Kuririn"[1]. -- Jreferee t/c 23:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The first two were closed by a user who participated in the dicsussion, which presents a conflict of interest, and thus should not happen. Secondly, he is a non-admin, and there is currently contention as to what the community believes on non-admins closing discussions. Finally, I do not believe they were closed in accordance with consensus. The third one was closed by an admin without COI. However, he admitted that his closed so as to not go against the other two closes, since the three articles are in essence the same thing. I do not belive any of them were closed according to guideline and policy-based consensus. The major factor was a recent peer review that suggested they break these three sections into their own articles. However peer review is not authoritative; it does not override guidelines. The information is not notable; it isn't even verified. If the information is not important enough to be included in the main article, then it is surely not important enough for its own article. At the very least, I would support relisting them, preferably together so we don't end up with different results for each AfD. I (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. Just from a look at the AfDs and not at the articles themselves, it's clear that the closures of the first two were out of process. Non-admins shouldn't be closing discussions as "keep" when other users heve expressed "delete" opinions and when they themselves have registered "keep" opinions in the discussions. Deor 00:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as one AFD is the best I can figure out. They're so closely related that a single AFD will be best at determining consensus... we saw here a textbook case of why seperate AFDs can sometimes be a problem. --W.marsh 00:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as one - the three articles are very similar and should be considered together in order to truly gauge support levels. Too, there was notable delete support which was unnecessarily ignored by the closer, so we should have a more equitable discussion this time round. Biruitorul 02:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure that "needless trivia" and "random trivia" is a notable delete support rationale, wouldn't you agree? Rudget _zŋ 11:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - in the interests of this review, please consult here for reference to my actions of closure. Rudget _zŋ 11:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you - I'm sure none of us are aware of the rules for non-admin closing of an AFD /sarcasm. You closed a discussion you had expressed an opinion in and this isn't allowed. Non admins shouldn't close discussions where the outcome is not explicitly clear. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist as one: The point keeps being raised that this is "trivia" if that is what people think then they should take a look at every other airport article, they all have long lists of the airlines and destinations. If the decision is "delete as it is trivia" then somebody needs to tell the people at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports as they are the ones making it their policy to add these lists to all airport articles. I was the one who moved them to new pages and did so as I felt they cluttered the article deeming the general style to be somewhat horrific especially as Manchester Airport serves more destinations than any other UK airport. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 13:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as one: Per above. However, the delete comments "needless trivia" and "random trivia" in my opinion, aren't good opposes to the keeping of the article. I felt that the greater support opinion demonstrated a better argument. Regards, Rudget _zŋ 14:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LI-BS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Why does a voluntary organization, along with the people that invest work, get kicked out of Wikipedia? Is that usual procedure today? What will be next? Removing the Red Cross from Wikipedia because it too represents a voluntary organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranjid (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 November 2007

• Comment Topics are only covered on Wikipedia if the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (WP:N). Also read WP:ORG, which has the guidelines for inclusion for organizations. If you can provide reliable secondary sources about this organization, then it can be included. --Phirazo 17:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Secondary sources are the two founding members mentioned in the article, the 1000+ members, the community website as well as the mission statement on the website itsself and on LinkedIn. --Ranjid 17:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those aren't secondary sources - those are entirely primary and non-independent sources. Secondary sources would be an investigative journalist publishing in a paper of record, or the organization that gives a meaningful award in its description of why the group won an award, or ... GRBerry 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ah, the good old slippery slope. A truly convincing argument, that one. (You also might want to consider, I dunno, changing the name of that organization. The last two letters, I mean... yeesh.) JuJube 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid WP:CSD#A7, article did not assert significance or importance. GRBerry 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, with no point in restoring following challenge because it's definitely a speedy deletion. This would be true of almost 100% of volunteer organisations started in "mid-2007". Splash - tk 01:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - One thing that separates Wikipedia from the rest of the Internet is that Wikipedia strives to keep organizations from writing their own Wikipedia article. That's it. If newspapers and other reliable sources independent of the organization are not interested in facts about the organization, then those facts should not be added to Wikipedia. Why does a voluntary organization who can't get independent reliable sources to write about them think that is what Wikipedia looks for in a topic? Why should that be a usual procedure? What will be next? Adding to Wikipedia information about an organization that no one is interested only because it and the Red Cross each represents a voluntary organization? That would turn everything Wikipedia has worked for during the past seven years on its head. -- Jreferee t/c 23:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vangteh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

• It was deleted "hoax?, no sources", but User:Khumpita has listed claimed references in User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Vangteh. In summary, Vangteh seems to be claimed to be a small (WP:NN?) petty kingdom that existed in Burma before British times. The odd style is likely because his first language is not English but Burmese. Anthony Appleyard 09:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AFD since that's how to deal with non-libelous, non-obvious hoaxes. I guess this deserves a fair shake at AFD rather than speedy deletion. However, the referencing provided seems dubious to me, a lot if it seems to just be Wikipedia mirrors... although there are some Google books results. --W.marsh 14:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD It should not have been speedied. But, as W.marsh says, if not a hoax, it will need a good deal of work.DGG (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Erdős numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

This is a relisting of the 7 November DRV, per its closure.

The original DRV nominator provided this link as an explanation.

The closer further explained his closure at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28.

I'd like to add to that to suggest that while I agree with User:Kbdank71's closure rationale for the discussion as it stands as a single discussion (and accepting that consensus can change), if I were to take into account the previous discussions, and a few of the comments at the recent DRV (including my own), I think that a case could be made to restore the 1, 2, and at most 3 of the numbered categories. Anything larger than 3 isn't supported by the "keep" arguments, as far as I could see. So I'd like to request that, since this is a "group nomination", if you feel that the closure should be even partially overturned, please specify exactly which categories you would like to see restored.

And since the canvassing of the previous discussion(s) has been seen as an issue, I would also ask that no canvassing be done during this discussion. I'll leave a notice at the original closer's talk page, and at the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics. That should be more than enough. - jc37 09:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused about the scope of this discussion here. Although I did comment myself on large finite Erdos numbers in my comment below pasted from the previous DRV, it was meant as more of an aside in the context of others mentioning a preference for small finite Erdos numbers in their own asides, and not intended to be a pursuasive arguement for their inclusion. The closer of the CfD makes no mention of the size of the various Erdos numbers in his arguements for deleting the categories without a consensus. [2] Is the debate taking place here in this DRV being expanded to a general back and forth discussion of the merits of categories of the specific Erdos numbers? Or are we still simply discussing whether or not the deletion should be overturned? If the scope of this debate is indeed being widened to this extent, then alot more discussion will need to take place, because this issue has never really been placed before us formally in any forum up until now. --Ramsey2006 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse closure, for the reasons above. If closure is overturned, only supporting the restoration of Erdős numbers 1 and 2. I think even 3 is probably stretching it. - jc37 09:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion. (Copied and pasted from previous DRV) There was no consensus to delete. In addition, several of the supposedly stronger arguements don't make any sense to me. For example, how is the fact that not all 8000 mathematicians with a particular Erdos number (or range of numbers) are not notable enough to have a wikipedia entry even relavant to the discussion, much less a reason to delete? We don't delete categories about people who were born in year 1957 just because not everybody born in 1957 is notable enough to have a wikipedia article. As for accuracy, this has not been demonstrated to be a problem. Wikipedia has policies reguarding truth vs verifiability using reliable sources. As for Erdos numbers not reflecting ones skill as a mathematician and similar comments, unless a person's Erdos number is 0, this is a strawman. Erdos numbers have never been presented as such, although no doubt many mathematicians with Erdos number 1 are extremely and uncommonly good mathematicians. But this is not what they measure.

As a mathematician, I like being able to see somebody's Erdos number at a glance when I come across a math biography. It makes wikipedia a more useful and valuable online encyclopedia for me. (Yes, I could go over to MR and type in the guys name, but I generally wouldn't bother to do so as a wikipedia reader, unless it was to add the information as an editor.) It is a significant part of mathematical culture and folklore, and a part of mathematical culture which has been popularized to a great extent in the general public, also. People are interested in the individual Erdos numbers of individual mathematicians, even if this is not the most important and significant peice of information contained in a biographical article. And the list of those interested does not only include other mathematicians. (As a side note, in my opinion, large Erdos numbers of individual mathematicians is just as interesting as small numbers. If the subject of a math bio has an Erdos number of 14, this is something that I would be fascinated to stumble across in an article, and after stumbling across this little peice of information, I would definitely be inclined to go over to MR and start tracing the collaboration paths, at least late on a friday afternoon. I would also click on the category to see who else has a bio here who has such a large finite Erdos number.) --Ramsey2006 13:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "people are interested in the individual Erdos numbers of individual mathematicians", that's a good reason to include them in the article, but that's one of the crucial misunderstandings behind the opposition to deletion. Categories exist to assist navigation by grouping articles on a limited number of defining characteristics, not to somehow tag articles with points of interest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer for same reasons as last DRV. --Kbdank71 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should either disregard this vote, or count nominator's (User:PeterStJohn) vote to overturn as well. (Igny 14:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)) The PeterStJohn did vote below. (Igny 21:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Endorse, the reasoning looks completely sound to me. Part of mathematical subculture and folklore? Fine, put it in the infobox. No doubt many fields have in-jokes, but that doesn't mean we need a category for people in on the joke. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist on AFD more precisely I would like to see a debate where all the possible option are considered. Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28 has a number of alternatives including Category:Mathematicians by Erdos number (note narrower cats), a field in infobox scientist (or possibly infobox mathematician) or listifying. (personal preference for the latter). --Salix alba (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist on CfD - need a completely new discussion to try and avoid the drama of the previous discussions, and because lots of alternatives have been suggested in the meantime. Hopefully people can be a bit more reasonable this time round. Carcharoth 16:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn because there was no consensus to delete; see previous DRV for more explanation. I would also support relisting on CfD per Carcharoth. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and do not relist. This is the second DRV of the third AFD. All this listing and relisting seems likely to fatigue the regulars (as has already seen in the last AFD, where many comments of the form "see my response in the previous AFD" were ignored by the closer) leading to progressively less-informed discussions where only the few most stubborn and argumentative holdouts remain and prevail (see SparsityProblem and BrownHairedGirl's badgering of all other participants in the last AFD). That's not the way to achieve a convincing consensus. (Disclaimer, since BrownHairedGirl will jump on me if I don't mention it: there is an article about me that would be affected by this decision.) —David Eppstein 16:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, please; "badgering" and "will jump on me" are not good ways to refer to the actions of your fellow good-faith editors. SparsityProblem 20:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist for wider discussion Though I said delete, and will probably say so again, probably there was insufficient consensus; possibly the sponsors of the item will want to restrict it somewhat--that would improve it's chances. DGG (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Overturn Deletion for EN 1 and 2, weak overturn or relist for EN 3, endorse deletion or relist for EN>3. Seems like a good compromise to me. (Igny 18:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• (Weak?) keep An eminent mathematician who is also a regular Wikipedian said Erdos numbers are a joke. But that's no reason not to take them seriously. They're a cultural meme that needs to get reported. I have often pointed out that Wikipedia categories are vastly inferior to lists, but maybe categories are a good way to handle something like this; lists may be too sophisticated for this occasion. Michael Hardy 21:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion trivial, Michael Hardy's statement above is a good reason to endorse, because those criteria apply to astrological signs, which nearly every newspaper caters to those who believe that matters, indicating a far greater cultural significance - but just as trivial. The same could be said for marital infedilities, breast enhancements, DUI convictions and many similar intrigues that sell millions of papers and mags, but categories based thereupon have been deleted previously, this trivia category is no different. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per reasons on previous DRV. --Cheeser1 23:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong overturn: keep all cats (EN1 to EN6), and do not relist (per excellent argument of David Eppstein). The fact of the matter is that there was a strong consensus to keep these categories, both in this AFD and in the previous one, and the decision to delete was not based on that consensus. The same consensus emerged again on the previous DRV, perhaps even stronger. I mean, how many time do we have to go 'round and around with this? Till most everyone gets sick and tired of it, and only those left standing decide? Aside: This is the very first time I participate in a DRV, and I am left totally baffled by the process, and what it takes to establish consensus. Turgidson 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse deletion as trivia. There was lots of evidence that the subject of Erdős numbers was notable, and no argument on that point as plentiful references were produced to papers and other publications which discussed Erdős numbers and the graphs derived from them; but abolutely no evidence has been offered that the Erdős number of an individual was anything other than a point of trivia widely regarded with in the mathematical community as a joke, and in no way a "defining characteristic" of a mathematician per WP:CAT. (Repeated requests for evidence of Erdős numbers being used as a defining characteristic by official academic publications (rather than on individual's homepage etc) produced only one example, in which they were described as "silly". The failure of many "keep" !voters to acknowledge the difference between on one hand the notability of the topic as a whole and on the other hand the question of whether an individual's Erdős number is a "defining characteristic" was one of the major reasons why the debate became so heated. Further discussion on the talk page after the CfD closed exposed further fundamental problems with categorisation by Erdos number, including that:
  1) there is no consensus on the definition of an Erdős number (whether it should be restricted to collaboration in mathematical papers or extend to all scientific papers or even to all academic papers)
  2) the mathscinet database regularly claimed as a reliable source can validate only the first definition of an Erdős number, which is not the definition used in the head article Erdős number
  3) Other assessments of an individual's Erdős number amount to original research.
  Some contributions to this DRV claim or imply that the views of mathematicians are more important in a deletion discussion related related to mathematics than those on non-mathematicians, a principle which would set a far-reaching precedent. Will admins closing future debates be expected to try to verify the professional credentials of individuals who are all entitled to anonymity? Or do we continue the existing practice of treating all wikipedians as rational editors who can weigh the evidence offered by those claiming expertise in a particular subject, by verifying the evidence against reliable sources?
  The closure of this debate as "delete" would be wrong if WP:CAT accepted that a widespread joke was grounds for categorisation, but unless and until WP:CAT is changed in such a fundamental way, there were only two ways to close this debate: by making a headcount and saying "keep", or by measuring the arguments against wikipolicy and saying "delete". Kbdank71 was quite correct to choose the latter, and the existence of a campaign amongst a few mathematician wikipedians to attack the decision does not alter existing policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, again. My comments from the previous DRV stand: "First, a reminder to all that this is not the place to rehash deletion arguments. This forum is only for discussing the closure itself. Many of the Overturn and even some of the Endorse !votes above fail to remember that fact. Since the topic at hand is the administrator's closing of the discussion, I would have to say that the reasons given for said closure are valid. The !votes in the discussion for 'keep' based on 'Nothing has changed since the last time' were properly ignored. Similarly weak were the 'keep' arguments that seemed to be addressing the notability of Erdos numbers as a concept, rather than the appropriateness of categorization by said numbers. Such arguments would have been valid for an AfD on Erdos number but not on a CfD; they were likewise properly ignored. The remainder of the 'keep' arguments, while making a decent case for keeping, were clearly not sufficient to overcome the significant 'not a defining characteristic' concerns." Powers ^T 04:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion. There was no consensus to delete. The close was inappropriate. Paul August ☎ 04:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, do not relist. I agree with David Epstein's concern over fatigue in continuing to relitigate this issue, and I think it's beginning to feel like a war of attrition. Although several people here have said that the closing admin's arguments were solid, the reasons given were actually based on misinterpretation of the relevant guidelines and were extensively and effectively rebutted at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28. For instance, I challenge anyone to defend the first argument, not all of those 8,000 people are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, with a straight face. I am also concerned that the closing admin, Kbdank71, and the reopener of this deletion review, jc37, may be out of step with the wikipedia community's view of policy and guidelines concerning categories based on their positions on the deletion review for Category:Wikipedians by alma mater at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_7 Category:Wikipedians by alma mater, opened the same day as the original DRV for the Erdos number cats. Both endorsed deletion of the Wikipedians cat and its subcategories based on policy and guidelines, but that deletion was overwhelmingly overturned and the policy and guidelines argument for deletion was rejected. Decisions against consensus are fine if they are strongly supported by policy, but an application of policy and guidelines to overrule consensus must be done carefully and correctly. This is a much more heavily contested and far less clearcut case than the Wikipedians cats, but I think the guidelines reasoning provided for the close here was also incorrect. Quale 06:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I considered not responding, but if the comments above are sincere (and I suppose I should presume that they are), then I should probably clear up some confusion you seem to have.

  "Relitigate"? - These are discussions, not trials. We're all Wikipedians here, and shouldn't be viewing each other as "adversarial".

  "not all of those 8,000 people are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles" - Apparently not all are?

  I find it's interesting that you decide to group me with Kbdank71. (and while I take such as a compliment, I realise you didn't intend it as such). And I would think that a couple DRV discussions in comparison to his myriad of closures would illustrate quite the opposite. Also, DRV discussions can be a bit more complex than just "keep/delete", as is shown by this very discussion.

  And finally, I think it's amazing that you attack me as the DRV relister. I'm acting as was suggested by the closer of the previous DRV, and am at least somewhat supporting that at least some of the information be kept "somehow".

  And in reading the above, I question whether you've actually read, or at least understood those "policies and guidelines". Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, might be two places to start. - jc37 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• what a bloody pain. The arguments for deletion were, I think, stronger; the arguments for closing in the face of 2-1 against, not so much. So I guess overturn and relist; the result was correct but the closure was improper, so we'd better do it again. Then can everyone please let it go, however it comes out? It's really not that big a deal. Oh, to be explicit, the main issue here is the propriety of the closure, and my judgment on that is that it was improper -- the "relist" part is secondary, because it's not what we're really deciding here. --Trovatore 09:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. What is interesting to me however is that if CfD or AfD results in no consensus it is by default keep. In this case, "no consensus" defaulted to delete for some reason. Now DRV will likely end in no consensus as well (to no surprise). What is default decision for no consensus in DRV? That is right, overturning the deletion and then undoing overturn and relisting the DRV is no surprise either. Now it will end up in relisting CfD I guess, which will end in no consensus again. What then? It looks like wikibureaucrats are baffled by this situation. We should definitely have a monarch who can make final decisions for us. But then it'd be endless appeals... (Igny 14:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Endorse, reasonable call, replace by List of people by Erdős number because a clear list on the topic is more comprehensive than a bunch of categories. >Radiant< 12:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore for Erdős numbers 1-3 -- same reasoning as before. — xDanielx ^T/_C 13:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - as per DGG. IMO the CFD didn't receive a consensus, so relist for a greater discussion. Rudget _zŋ 14:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Overturn the deletion For reasons given in the numerous preceeding attempts to delete the category. Pete St.John 16:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion at least for Erdős numbers 1, 2 and 3 as per reasons in previous DRV. Gandalf61 17:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and do not relist. Per David Eppstein and Quale. Despite three recent attempts and heavy lobbying for deletion, including here where it is inappropriate, there never has been anything remotely approaching a consensus for deletion, nor is one likely to emerge any time soon. The close with deletion was incorrect. Relisting would be another tedious waste of time. --KSmrq^T 20:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per Salix alba. I have been one of the supporters of the categories. I still think that this information belongs on Wikipedia, and that categories are the right way to include it. But the entire process of this, the third CfD for these categories, has been too rushed. We need more time and more participants to come to a consensus. Ntsimp 04:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. For any Erdos number greater than 1, having an Erdos number is not a defining characteristic; Erdos had hundreds of collaborators, and they could have had any number of collaborators. Reportedly Georg Frobenius's Erdos number is 3 -- and he died in 1917, when Erdos was 4 years old. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, Frobenius has Erdős number 3: He wrote a paper in 1906 with Issai Schur, wro wrote a paper in 1925 with Gábor Szegő, who wrote a paper in 1942 with Paul Erdős. So how does this prove we need to delete the categories EN2, EN3, etc? Turgidson 07:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Same argument as in the last DRV, as per Paul August and Quale. Running this DRV over again looks like pointless bureaucracy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, at the very least for Erdős numbers 1, 2 and 3. I do not understand how the closing admin can claim to have seen a consensus for deletion as the result of the CfD discussion, also not considering strength of argument. A few discussants kept repeating the same argument, but that does not make it stronger. Also, from the CfD discussion it was evident that even among the few proponents of deletion several were in favour of keeping the categories for the lower numbers, giving perhaps even a consensus to keep these. And please, do not relist.  --Lambiam 08:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. No consensus to delete. Shanes 09:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion A substantial majority with coherent arguments argued "keep". The views of those expressing the same opinions as previously should not be discounted. The close was not in accordance with the debate. (This is as I argued at the previous DRV). I am only addressing the merits of the closure (which were rather few). Any discussion about the merits of the categories should be at a CFD. I have no view as to whether or not there should be another CFD. Thincat 10:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn ^{(copy&paste from my post from the previous DRV, mostly)}. I have closed several debates against the votecount myself, sometimes even blatantly so; when I do that though, I try to carefully craft the closing statement, and its foundation on relevant policies, practices and precedents. Sorry, but "because I think side X had better arguments" doesn't cut it for me. Having read the debate, especially the discussion, I see many valid and coherent arguments in favor of the keep. Yes, it was asserted that EN are trivia; however, it was also reasonably argued that EN are far more than just trivia. Having seen the debate on the CFD's talk page, the closer's argument were also reasonably challenged there. Yes, there were many WP:NOTAGAIN !votes on the keep side, but also many WP:PERABOVE !votes on the delete side; but in total, I don't see how this could be closed as anything else but "no consensus". Preserving only 1-3 is a viable option in my opinion, but AFAICT this idea emerged only at this DRV, thus it's possibly out of DRV's scope (though we're not bureaucracy) Duja► 11:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it was discussed quite a bit in the original discussion. See comments by User:SparsityProblem, User:DGG, User:Quale, and several others. It's threaded throughout the discussion. - jc37 19:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I am also concerned and confused about the scope of this DRV. (See my indented comments in reply to the original nominator of this second DRV above, as yet unanswered.) I can't tell if that scope has expanded or not, and I think that we need an answer before an administrator closes this DRV, possibly with a split decision. Are we just discussing the action of the original deletion (which didn't make any distinction between various Erdos numbers), or are we supposed to be making arguements here on the merits for and against the categories for different specific Erdos numbers? If it is the latter (as the nominating statement seems to suggest), then we really need to know that before this DRV is closed, so that we have a chance to make our arguements on this wider question. --Ramsey2006 14:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, bury the categories under fifty feet of dirt, and stomp on them repeatedly. For the reasons why the closing admin's decision was correct, see User:BrownHairedGirl's comments above. As for the reasons why these are bad categories, these are not particularly relevant now, but all the same, I'd like to quote User:R.e.b. here, as he said it better than anyone and is also likely more qualified to speak on this issue than anyone else who has participated in the discussions:

"The concept of Erdős numbers is a mathematicians joke. The point of the joke is to rank mathematicians by a number that is obviously of no significance whatsoever, in order to see how many people are fooled into taking it seriously. Quite a lot, judging by the discussion above." [3]

I also question the wisdom of re-listing this at DRV so soon after the first DRV was overturned due to canvassing -- surely it would be better to leave some time for the bias introduced by canvassing to undo itself -- but that doesn't change my vote. SparsityProblem 20:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment It is difficult to assume good faith on the part of editors who are not content to disagree and state their opinion, but who actually feel the need to put down the cultural traditions of others with offensive talk of burrying them under 50 feet of dirt and stomping on them repeatedly. But perhaps such editors could enlighten the rest of us by providing a list of those of us who are not felt to be qualified to speak on this issue. A little civility would go a long way here. --Ramsey2006 04:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur. I find it astonishing that SP is objecting to the relisting. The CfD was overturned, and when he reiterated his complaints (which were already made plain in the first DRV) he got his way and it was un-overturned, explicitly providing for relisting, and even that isn't good enough?? --Cheeser1 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur, too. As for the "bury the categories under fifty feet of dirt, and stomp on them repeatedly" speech, I can only say it reminds me of We will bury you. Turgidson 05:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not interested in "getting my way", I'm interested in building a good encyclopedia. Saying that I'm trying to "get my way" by trying to make Wikipedia better (according to my opinion of what constitutes "better", which may differ from yours) is rather reminiscent of those who said that the 2000 US presidential election candidates were "trying to get their way" by attempting to make sure the votes were counted correctly (while we're making political analogies). SparsityProblem 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a wonderful argument in techical symantics. However, it is completely irrelevant. You wanted the last DRV to fail (for whatever reason, making Wikipedia better okay, sure). And it didn't go that way. And then you simply repeated your objections until somebody un-overturned the DRV, with the obvious and necessary provision that it be relisted. Why? Because your complaints where technical, and had nothing to do with the merits of any arguments in the DRV. And yet now you complain about it being relisted. --Cheeser1 18:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if you weren't focusing (IMO, irrelevantly) on my motivations, you would be asking whether it's good for the encyclopedia for the DRV to be re-listed, rather than questioning whether it's good for it to be re-listed only because it happened to be me who pointed out that the DRV was closed inappropriately early and that the closing admin didn't seem to be aware of the issues over canvassing. Whether or not the DRV should have been re-listed, the reasons whether it should or shouldn't have been have nothing to do with me. SparsityProblem 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, I just said that your motivations are irrelevant. Claiming that they are positive seems like you're the one focusing on your motivations. I don't know or care why you're insisting that it's unfair to relist this DRV, but it's absurd to insist that relisting it is anything but exactly what should have been done. --Cheeser1 05:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I stated in my original !vote why I thought it wasn't wise to relist this DRV so quickly after the first DRV was cancelled: because the first DRV was cancelled due to canvassing, and given that the !votes on the first DRV were skewed by canvassing, it would be silly to think that the !votes on the second DRV were not also skewed by that same canvassing (did everyone affected by the canvassing forget about it immediately?) SparsityProblem 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment is sheer, wanton, head-in-bag nonsense (and before anyone invokes WP:CIVIL again, note that I'm referring to your comment and not you.) It is useful, though, in that it points to the problem with this entire discussion: confusing an objection to abusing the Wikipedia category system to promote the trivial interests of a few with an attack against mathematical culture. Anyway, if my comment was putting down any cultural traditions (which it wasn't), it was putting down my own cultural traditions, as I am as much a mathematician as many of the people participating in this discussion who have identified themselves as such. SparsityProblem 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you actually read WP:CIVIL, including the section on Examples? If I were to state that your above statement is a form of demagogy, the likes of which the world has not witnessed since the Völkischer Beobachter, would you still think this is not a personal attack since it only refers to the utter drivel with which you poison the discussion in order to further your interest in building a good encyclopedia, but not to your person?  --Lambiam 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I've read it. What part of the section on Examples are you referring to? I don't see anything relevant there. And if you were to state that, I wouldn't see it as a personal attack, only as a criticism of my comment. By definition, that would not be ad hominem. At any rate, could any further comments on my motivations, my agenda, or my resemblance to deceased Soviet leaders please be directed to my talk page or someone else's talk page, and I'll try to do the same? This is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the question of whether the closing admin acted properly in choosing to uphold the votes for deletion of the Erdos number categories. SparsityProblem 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I was referring to the example of the judgmental edit summary "snipped rambling crap", obviously referring to a previous editor's contribution and not the editor themself.  --Lambiam 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I take your point. SparsityProblem 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion with prejudice: This is absolute madness. Every time the categories have been put up for deletion, they have had overwhelming support for 'keep', 2:1 or 3:1. The CfD was closed by an admin with a clear and stated POV, leading to a deletion review. The deletion review (with strong support for overturning the decision) was then overruled for no good reason. Regardless of how I might feel about the category, I would certainly ask for the deletion to be overturned -- procedure is clearly not being followed. More than that, though, the category is useful, notable, and supported by great quantities of research. No amount of hot air from the small minority who want to delete will change that.

It's a funny thing -- I don't actually feel strongly about the categories, making my decision to keep them in the original CfD after some research. I think that I came to the right conclusion then. But this process is clearly driven by a small group hostile to the category, a group which does not have the support of Wikipedia at large. It's amazing that this has taken so long to resolve -- the unsupported deletion result should have been overturned quickly. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CRG, I think it's worth addressing (maybe not here) such meta-issues. For one thing, I belive that at least one of the opposition admins has a truely vast contribution history. That doesn't excuse obviating apparent consensus, but it does, IMO, excuse hesitation on the part of an admin who considers acting on this. My theory, fwiw, is that the opposition believes "law precedes justice", what I would call the moralistic view, while I believe "justice preceeds law", what I would call the ethicist view. In other words, they fight (terrifically) for their interpretation of Wiki Policy, while mathematicians tend to fight for the content. Just my hypothesis. Pete St.John 23:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, PSJ. I had some inchoate thoughts along these lines, but your hypothesis is much better stated. From what I already knew empirically, and from what this long series of debates has taught me, I think your theory is substantialy correct. Turgidson 23:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The closer's interpretation of the discussion was correct. No substantial argument has been provided that Erdős numbers are in any way a defining attribute and not just the mathematical research equivalent of the Bacon number (i.e. a statistical curiousity which may or may not imply certain things about specific people). The two options offered at the post-close discussion seem more viable: create and maintain a sourced list or add an optional parameter to {{Infobox Scientist}}. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BlackFalcon, do you believe that Kbdank71, in closing and deleting, respected a consensus, or that he was constrained to do so? Thanks, Pete St.John 23:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist for more detailed options. The initial closer misinterpreted the arguments given. As noted below in this section, most of the "delete" arguments would cause such categories as Category:People from Ohio also to be deleted. Now, as for the arguments I would have presented in the AfD: The information should be moved to text or an infobox, and arguments for categories #'s 1, 2, and possibly 3 may be different than for 4, 5, 6, etc. The presence of Category:People from Ohio makes the "defining characteristic" argument moot, and does much to eliminiate the ambiguity argument due to different definitions of "co-authored a paper with"; is that category for people born in Ohio, or those who grew up in Ohio, or those who consider Ohio their home, or those who are currently stationed in Ohio looking for a way out. (No offense intended to Ohio; that was just the example given in one of the other commentary threads.) We don't ask for sources as to whether someone is "from" Ohio or even born in Ohio, although perhaps we should. Categories corresponding to numbers greater than 4 are more problematic, as the person with that number might not know when one of his collaborators wrote a paper with one of the thousands of people with Erdos number 2, making his number 4. I would probably !vote: Strong keep on 1 and 2, Weak keep on 3, neutral on 4, weak delete on 5 and 6 provided that, if mathematicians, it should go in the infobox. Perhaps then we should use the MathSci definition of Erdos number unless we can prove otherwise. Disclaimer: see Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 1. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and relist separately Per Arthur Rubin, CRGreathouse, and David. I personally think that Erdos number 1 makes sense to list and after that it is hard to see why we need a specific category (and I agree that we can can add it to the infobox). However, deleting the level 1 collaborators clearly had no consensus nor was there anything resembling a general consensus and the admin in question appears to have let his POV affect the close. JoshuaZ 14:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Which other scientists would you advocate creating a "Collaborators of [whoever]" category about? If none, why this one in particular? If because Erdos numbers have special cultural significance, does the concept of "Erdos number 1" have greater cultural significance than the concept of "Erdos number 2"? SparsityProblem 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I wonder if a compromise on this could be to "keep" 1 (and possibly 2); "relist" 3 (and possibly 2 - separately); "delete" 4 and up? - jc37 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The only issue here in this DRV, so far as I know, is whether or not to overturn the deletion of the categories. The reasons given by the closing admin for closing the categories are listed here: [4] There is no mention of specific values of Erdos numbers mentioned in the reasons given. I've asked twice above whether the scope of this DRV has been widened into a general discussion of the specific values of the various Erdos numbers on their merits, and have recieved no response, which would seem to indicate to me that this is not within the scope of this DRV discussion. If the scope of this DRV is to be widened, then we need to have some notification of this fact, so that we have a chance to fully discuss and debate the additional issues involved that would fall within that widened scope. --Ramsey2006 18:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note the response to Duja, directly above your question. - jc37 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see the reply to Duja, but I still don't know the answer to my question. --Ramsey2006 21:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JAMAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a notable service club that is present at many schools across the United States. That fact alone is sufficient enough to credit JAMAA as a notable club and surely worthy of an article at Wikipedia. Again, I believe that this deletion is a personal attack on me by a certain administrator. Please review at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Rhythmnation2004 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some references for JAMAA:

• [5] See page 6
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

Rhythmnation2004 04:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st source proves it exists at one school (it just lists it). The second proves a girl was once in it in another school. The 3rd proves that the same school as the first one exists (in a list of other activities). The fourth proves it exists at another school in a list of other activities (plus Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source). None of this proves notability. It proves existence, not notability. Metros 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from deleting admin Nothing in the article proves notability to me, that's why it was speedied as a non-notable organization. The closest to establishing notability is the line: "It appears in several schools throughout the United States" which is far from concrete notability. Metros 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to deleting admin Metros, I am a little confused by your interpretation of what qualifies as "notable". A club that exists at many schools is surely notable, as there would be users who would search for JAMAA and contribute to the article. The entire goal of the Wikipedia project is to create a free encyclopedia that users can come to to get information about any subject imaginable. Since JAMAA is a reputable organization, there will surely be curious minds who want to know exactly what it is. Therefore, an article not only contributes but is essential to the project. In this case, existance indeed establishes the notability of the club. Rhythmnation2004 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I apologize for the fourth reference. The official source can be found at the website for that school. [9] Rhythmnation2004 04:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Where is the proof it is notable? Just because it exists does not mean it's notable. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Metros 04:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable in that according to the page you referenced above, "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." The activities are indeed national in scale, as I have given evidence of three schools, all in different areas of the United States, that have this club. I also provided sources that are independent of the organization. Rhythmnation2004 04:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respectful request for third-party intervention. I believe that this is an unfair conflict, as we are both aware that because of former biases which you hold against me, you have no intention on restoring this page, regardless of how many sources I provide. Therefore, I hereby respectfully request that an administrator other than Metros, or any administrator with whom he is affiliated, give their input in this issue. Rhythmnation2004 04:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion. "Appears in several schools throughout the United States" is not an assertion of notability. Sandstein 09:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Well then can someone please tell me exactly what classified as "notable"? Because according to the direct quotation from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), this article indeed qualifies. What additional proof does this article need to prove that this is a notable organization? Rhythmnation2004 12:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: WikiProject Organizations has been informed of this ongoing Deletion Review. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion that article contained no indication of significance beyond "Appears in several schools throughout the United States" which, as Sandstein states, is not an assertion of notability. No sources have been presented since to establish notability other than very short mentions which show nothing more than it exists at multiple schools. To show notability, non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources is needed and we don't have it here. Hut 8.5 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What's stopping the nominator from simply writing a much better article, with sources demonstrating notability? Guy (Help!) 14:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Because I have already established notability through four third-party sources. What is your example of a third party source that established notability? Rhythmnation2004 14:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• [10] This page shows JAMAA's international involvement in Africa
• [11] See page 19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhythmnation2004 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revision. Please view my proposed revision of JAMAA at my sandbox page. Rhythmnation2004 14:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit re-creation if truly Reliable newspaper or magazine sources can be found. DGG (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My current revision cites an article from New Internationalist magazine. Rhythmnation2004 18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restoring due to lack of admin participation. Since my current revision cites credible sources, I'm going to restore this page since there has been no administrative comments in the last several hours. Please feel free to continue discussion here should any further issues arise. Rhythmnation2004 01:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per discussion at WP:ANI, restored version userfied to User:Rhythmnation2004/JAMAA. Please comment on this version. Thanks. ELIMINATORJR 15:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation using new version JoshuaZ 18:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that allowing Rhythmnation2004 to recreate the article with the New Internationalist and Women's Commission sources is the appropriate action here. --Iamunknown 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that this would be reasonable.DGG (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse deletion/Allow recreation using new version - CSD A7 importance/significance is easy to overcome if you know how. Given the listed references, it seems likely that an article can be put together that may receive a good AfD discussion regarding WP:N. -- Jreferee t/c 23:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for speedier response. This review has been far too inactive. Can this be further looked into so that the article may be created as soon as possible? Rhythmnation2004 21:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no deadline. Are you representing this organisation? Guy (Help!) 12:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy, recreate with the version in userspace if someone feels like it, but it'd just get deleted through afd. Read the article, the 'worldwide' claims come from a misunderstanding, the organization in Burundi isn't the same as the organization in some US colleges, they just share the same name since it's a common swahili word. There's at least one more organization with the same name [12] (on the first page of my google results), but there's no indication that any of them share a relation in any way other than their name. Based on the sources, you couldn't even say that the organizations in the US schools were related, since the mentions are just in passing. - Bobet 11:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]