Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 2

Category:African American basketball players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) CfD

majority of users seem to want this category page as a subcategory page for Category:African American sportspeople. The later cat page is incredibly long and subcategory page improves navigating. Moreover, there is Category:African American baseball players - it seems unfair to have one and not the other. The argument that African American baseball players of the first half of the 20th century have had historic significance but African American basketball players (like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Michael Jordan have not, apparently) seems rather too POV. There are others too in the same boat, one for each of the major sports Category:African American boxers, Category:African American professional wrestlers, Category:African American track and field athletes, Category:African American soccer players, Category:African American tennis players, Category:African American American football players, Category:African American Canadian football players (this last one was not even a recreation) all have been speedily deleted (almost as if to avoid discussion) despite their being able to be well-populated. I can see however with sports where there has been only one or two African American sportspeople, not wanting a subcat page (I don t know, like for dart players or nascar drivers or something). Mayumashu (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the discussion please! Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_27#Category:African_Americans_by_sport

• "Overturn" per [1]. --Kbdank71 21:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The CfD used as precedent,
  can consensus change, in this case it could not have more clearly changed. User:Kbdank71 abused discretion to disregard the clearest possible consensus in this CfD by insisting that a previous CfD set a binding precedent. Participants had the opportunity to consider the nominator's demands for the disruptive deletion and were near-unanimous in their rejection of the nomination. The Cfd Kbdank71 cited, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_3#Category:African_American_baseball_players was a rather narrow decision that almost certainly should have been a "no consensus", for which clear and convincing policy arguments were made for retention, while IHATEIT was offered for deletion. In their zeal to impose arbitrary precedents, we have ended up with a nearly unusable Category:African American sportspeople that includes well over 2,000 articles, but no effective organization within that category. This is symptomatic of the Bizarro world at CfD, where a small handful of editors have sought to disrupt the category system by picking off a category and then using that precedent as a battering ram to justify deletion of any and all similar categories. As with Category:African American sportspeople, much greater flexibility and common sense is needed to allow articles to be organized in a manner in which those coming to Wikipedia can navigate and find similar articles. As Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_27#Category:African_Americans_by_sport, the CfD used as "precedent" was improperly decided in clear ignorance of consensus, as there is no policy that turns prior decisions into binding precedents, and as the current refusal to allow recreation only perpetuates the disruption to the category system based on an improperly decided "precedent", the underlying Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_27#Category:African_Americans_by_sport should be overturned and all associated categories should be recreated. Alansohn (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn per
  assume good faith about the motives and intentions of other editors and admins and their use of CfD. Surprise!—people make mistakes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • When the same people make these "mistakes" multiple times and then other people turn these "mistakes" into policy, using these "precedents" as justification to delete other categories, there is a genuine and systemic problem. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why this forum exists. We can still assume good faith about users. What's the issue? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're discussing it here. With a number of the admins in question voting to overturn, we may solve this one problem. I look forward to good faith from everyone involved (I will choose not to name names) and this is certainly an excellent harbinger. Alansohn (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I meant what's the issue/problem with assuming good faith? I don't think there is one to discuss here. Hopefully you can both prospectively and retrospectively look for good faith in editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I reciprocate your best wishes about the wonders of assuming good faith, and I will paraphrase your remarks on the subject as I encourage all other editors (again, names are not needed) to
            assume good faith about my motives and intentions as I join you in extending the same to all other Wikipedia editors,. I think we're all in favor of good faith interactions here, and unless there is some disagreement on this matter, we've probably exhausted the subject. Alansohn (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • OK, that's good. I guess your original comments about editors that "abused discretion" and "sought to disrupt the category system" suggested to me that you were not doing so retrospectively. I encourage you to withdraw these comments. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • It seems like it's turning into the Otto game, where no comment can be left unresponded. I will agree that there aren't too many people who seek to intentionally disrupt the category system. Even with the best of intentions, the damage that sometimes results from the subconscious bias towards deletion of categories, as we see here, is far greater than the cost of the much-feared bogeyman of overcategorization. I look forward to a greater sense of self-awareness that the purpose of the category system is to provide visitors with an aid to navigation, not as an exercise in finding rules to enforce or dredging up laundry lists of precedents. I think "abused discretion" is abundantly clear, and I stand behind that 100%. Alansohn (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hm, that didn't sound much like a retraction on either issue. OK, at least we know where you stand on AGF (or should I say lack thereof) in this situation. (By the way, you're under no obligation to respond to follow-ups if they annoy you or you see them as a mere "game".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I do sincerely assume that people act in good faith, though I also know that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. "It takes two to tango", and I believe it's your turn... Alansohn (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No thanks; I'm all danced out. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn' The closes here, and at the previous decisions, were mistaken, and I'm delighted to see the closer of one now wants it overturned. 'Nuff said. The "overcrowding" argument alone is sufficient to justify this. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OVERTURN - Hallelujah. I nearly gave up on Wikipedia after that terribly misbegotten decision. Ignoring concensus in a CFD should only ever be done very rarely, in the most extraordinary of circumstances -- and this was not one of those occasions. So I will be very happy indeed to see this one overturned. And I hope to see this return to common sense extended to what I still feel was the worst-ever decision at CFD, which resulted in the deletion of more than half a dozen categories for journalists. But let's take this one step at a time...
  
  Btw, the original group of 7 sub-cats included Category:African American football players -- but not the two similar categories listed above, which I think take things a step beyond what's needed. Cgingold (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't the heading for this DRV be Category:African Americans by sport, since that matches the original CFD? Cgingold (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, but proceed cautiously in restoring categories for other sports. I cannot account for why the wrong conclusion was drawn, but it surely was. DGG (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn this one only and list at CFD on its own.
  talk) 09:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Er, no it does not! It was just ignored before. Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Clearly, if the CFD is overturned it applies to ALL of the categories that were deleted. That's why I suggested changing the heading for the DRV section, in order to clarify that point. Cgingold (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And here I thought Alansohn was going to
  talk) 08:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

IfD

)

From my talk page:

"Hello Skier Dude, I would like to ask you to please restore the image:KenMcKenna2.jpg. This is not the first time it has been deleted. As I have said before, it is my photo, it has always been my photo, the photo was taken, processed, and utilized ALWAYS within MY possession. It was taken in the courtroom, at defense counsels table, after the day's proceedings. I don't have video proof or paperwork which I can provide you that shows it is MY photo. Who would ever have such materials for their OWN photos. You and other editors have exercised subjective assumption about the photo because the image appears to be of a newspaper's usage of my photo. Which I find ironic, since this whole wiki enterprise is about objectivity. Assumptions, faulty subjectivity, and incorrect observations aside....this is, has been, and always will be MY photo, in my possession, created, taken, and allowed to be used by ME. Objective analysis of this situation I hope yields a proper restoration of the image to the article. Thank you for your time. Adreamer323 (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this image has already been deleted twice, I'm bringing it here as I do not see that the user's claim to ownership of a newspaper photo can be substantiated without further proof. If he is the owner of the image he would have the non-newspaper version, which could easily be uploaded in place of this. As the newspaper photo is cropped, there is no 'byline' to determine who or what entity is credited for the photo. A quick search of the Reno Gazette-Journal site did not yield any results. I don't feel that without further substantiation of the claim to ownership that the image should be restored. Skier Dude (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Simple test: If you took the photo, upload the original version. If you don't have it, upload a clip from the newspaper which has your name on the byline. If you don't have that, get the newspaper to email [email protected] specifying the photograph and confirming that you have the rights to it. We have to be careful about copyrights as we can get in a lot of trouble if we get it wrong.
  talk) 09:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]