Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 6

Category:Scandals with -gate suffix (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category was deleted because it was a recreation of a category that was previously deleted. It has been previously deleted four times: 1 2 3 and 4. There is a list that covers -gate constructions at

• So, you are not challenging the deletion as a recreation of previously deleted categories with a similar name? You are proposing that the category be allowed to exist as a snowclone collection. If that was the case, wouldn't the category be properly titled Category:Snowclones which already exists? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider it a separate sub-category of category:snowclones. Since there are around 70 pages that would fit into the -gate category, I thought it would clutter up the snowclones category to put them all there. I brought this to Deletion Review to reexamine the creation of the category because there is significant information pertinent to the debate that was unavailable at the time the debate took place. Perhaps I should have brought one of the previous CFD deletions up for review? I'm not very familiar with DRV procedures or the best way to go about this. Gobonobo ^{T C} 00:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is what is meant, as I read your example "categorization by rhetorical technique as seen in Category:Figures of speech", is actually categerization of the technique themselves, not of articles which are titled according to that technique. If there is an encylopedia article to be written about -gate, then that would be added to the snowclones category, but not every article which in some way has a snowclone relation. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was referring to the subcategories of category:figures of speech. Just as category:onomatopoeias is a collection of onomatopoeias and category:euphemisms is a collection of euphemisms. Gobonobo ^{T C} 17:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand, though I personally thing some of those are overcats the categorised articles. In the case pf category:onomatopoeias it doesn't contain articles which happen to contain onomatopeia in the title likewise If there were an article about the use -gate, that would fit in the snowclones category, not every article about something dubbed -gate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment can't see what extra is being added here, this isn't CFD round X. We don't have precedents on wikipedia, so something which you see as similar doesn't mean a lot, as above that category is a category of articles about the techniques themselves, not every article which could conceivably related to the techniques. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation now that there is a parent structure to organize this ctageory, there's a great reason to allow the category to be recreated despite the prior deletion of categories with vaguely similar names. Alansohn (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• allow re-creation Consensus can change. In general if there is a category there should be a list, and vice versa. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  less than a month ago the last CFD had 5 deletes vs 1 keep. Ok it was only open a couple of hours, but given the poor turn out many CFDs get, it would certainly seem to point one way. Just stating consensus can change is pretty meaningless, especially when the most recent discussion tends to point to an underlying state that consensus hasn't. --82.7.40.7 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.40.7 (talk) [reply]

• Allow recreation It's useful to readers. Usefulness may not be a good reason to keep an article, but it's an excellent reason to keep a category. A reader trying to figure out a name can find this category from any of the "-gate" articles it covers, then search out the article the reader wants. Very convenient. You couldn't find the list article that fast unless you already knew the exact name. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my experience,
    WP:USEFUL is referred to just as much in CFD as AFD. Wherever the argument "it's useful" is cited, it is never accorded much weight. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The language you linked to: There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more,
      redirects for instance, so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion. There's also some language in there about explaining the usefulness of a page, which I also did. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Additional reasons for allowing recreation: The last CfD closing [1] referred to this CfD [2] for "Category -gate", didn't take into account the name change to "scandals with -gate", the current category name. Vegaswikian, in closing the last CfD, went against G4 policy [3] because the name change created a substantially different category, for which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. The name change was significant and showed that the category is about scandals (a subject), not all words with "gate" at the end of them. Policy clearly allows subject-related categories, and this is a subject-related (as opposed to "word-related") category. The close was against deletion policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that's right. This is not a subject-related category, because the articles that would be included are not about the abstract concept of a snowclone. The articles are about a variety of scandals which are otherwise unconnected to each other. Your argument would suggest that as long as the name of something is a pun, we could categorize it in Category:Puns. That's clearly not correct. We wouldn't categorize a bunch of articles together just because they were called "the mother of all X", but that too is a snowclone. This has been discussed many times and the categories have been repeatedly rejected. You might also want to be a tad careful in stating without any equivocation that users violated policy when that opinion rests upon an interpretation that not everyone agrees with. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse repeated deletion. Having this category would directly contradict the long-standing guideline that says we
  don't categorize unrelated subjects by shared name. There is a guideline and three or four past CFD discussions that have come to the same conclusion. Yes, consensus can change, but where is the evidence that it has? If re-creation is allowed, it will just be subjected to yet another full CFD, and it is very likely that it would be deleted again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • These threats just go to show how little "consensus" at CfD has to do with what the community as a whole thinks. I'm glad that this issue has been taken to a broader set of editors than the cloistered few who participate at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that you (who reguarly participates at CFD) + two other editors (one of whom regularly participates at CFD and appears to have a non-consensus-based personal policy of allowing the existence of any category if a list also exists; and another who argues
      WP:USEFUL) represents "the community as a whole", but whatever. By the way, I was not making a "threat"; I was predicting what would happen if it were re-created. I would appreciate it if you retracted that part of your comment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Not only can
        WP:USEFUL be an excellent argument for keeping a category (see my response to you above, at 23:28), it gets to the very heart of why we have categories in the first place -- helping our readers. And that trumps the principle that we shouldn't have categories about shared names, because that guideline section, which you may want to consult on the subject of usefulness, assumes that a name-based category is, ah, useless unless the subjects of the articles themselves are related. Well ... they're related. The suffix is NOT a non-defining characteristic of the subject because they're all about modern-day scandals, and that's why they're named "-gate". This "-gate" naming happens so often that it's useful to have an easily-accessable page (even more accesable than a list page, because the category link is at the bottom of every "-gate" page). Note that this isn't simply a category for names with "-gate" at the end of their names -- only scandals. So Stargate, for example, won't fit. Olfactory, please read the guidelines you link to. It would save time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • JohnWBarber, please assume that users have read the guidelines that they refer to. It would save you assuming bad faith and from assuming that your own interpretation of the guideline is the only correct one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why I was assuming good faith, Good Ol'. The two pages you linked to both clearly state the exact opposite of what you said they stated (it's obvious and isn't open to interpretation: "usefulness" is a criterion; "-gate" is not just a linguistic commonality but indicates something essential about the subject of each article in the category). A lot of editors link to guideline and policy pages they haven't read in a while and they often forget that those pages have statements that actually eviscerate the arguments the editors are making. I've probably done it, too. This time, for whatever reason, you've done it. Happens to the best of us. Nevertheless, I'm crossing out the sentences that offended you. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree that they say "the exact opposite of what [I] said they stated". I think you need to review what I said. (You are the only user here who has ascribed a particular meaning to
              WP:USEFUL, by the way.) You've completely misunderstood me or you haven't read the entire guideline. I assume the former. You're free to interpret guidelines in your own way, but don't try to tell other users what they mean or how they must interpret the guideline in context. Anyone can read and quote guidelines; the key is that I disagree with your assessment of the applicability of guidelines in this context. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • Try to avoid personalizing this and look on this as an argument about the subject at hand ("you" below, means "anybody"): You must interpret
                "Non-defining or trivial characteristic", which distinguishes trivial elements from the rest by asking whether or not the information is useful: "Such things may be interesting information for an article, but not useful for categorization." It all boils down to usefulness. Even "category clutter", the problem WP:OC is meant to solve, is defined as something that gets in the way of usefulness. Is category clutter a problem with more than a few of these articles? I guess the most famous are these, and there's no clutter: [4] [5] [6] [7] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
                ]
                • As I've said above, I disagree with your interpretation of the guideline as it applies to this situation. You can't force others to agree with your approach. I'm personalizing only to the extent that you are the only one advancing this interpretation and application. Thus, I refer to it as "your" approach. If you prefer to de-personalize: I disagree with the interpretation of the guideline as it applies to this situation that you have advanced. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus can change. I don't see that it has. --Kbdank71 02:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. No evidence of any change in the long-standing consensus against categorisation by shared name, either generally or in this specific case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Entirely appropriate closure in light of widely accepted
  guidelines and in light of consensus as expressed in a long line of past Cfd discussions. --Xdamr^talk 08:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse repeated deletion – I can't think of any instance when categorisation by a random feature of the name of an article has been supported. Should French scandals ending in portail be included? If not, what is the French equivalent?
  talk) 14:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse repeated deletion. The prior rationales for deletion remain strong and convincing. The use of the -gate suffix doesn't point to any underlying, categorical relationship between the scandals, other than that they all occurred in American politics after Watergate. Note also that there are no instances of
  List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, so that category does not alone provide justification for recreating this one. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • (1) other than that they all occurred in American politics after Watergate, sounds like this is NOT a
    useful for our readers or less? (3) Why would any other factor override the previous two points? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Actually, I was just incorrectly assuming that "-gate" pertains only to American politics, when in fact
      Tigergate"). So "-gate" is just media shorthand for scandal, and that suffix originated with Watergate, so obviously all scandals named in such a way occurred after it...but that date is otherwise arbitrary as a categorical relationship. So, 1) yes, it is just categorization based on shared name, 2) no, it does not make the encyclopedia more useful because it clutters articles with trivial categorization, and 3) is another point necessary? Category:Scandals and its various subcategories already exist; Category:Scandals by shared naming scheme is not a useful addition. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Referring to (1) if they've all been called scandals, they've got more in common than unrelated people named "Jones" (the example used at
        Noemigate? Nah. Oh, there it is: Betsygate. How would you find that, otherwise? How fast? And if you found your way to the category, you'd find the "List of" article quickly (you likely wouldn't have known it exists) and then be able to quickly distinguish the various soccer, car racing and other scandals. It's subject-related, does no harm and does much good in a common-sensical way. It's what we're here for. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • If I were looking for an article on a British political scandal, I would probably start with Category:Political scandals in the United Kingdom. postdlf (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the points in this case against
  WP:CCC as noted above. Eusebeus (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse repeated deletion. I am commenting here following an invitation at
  Watergate?), but there is no reason to add every article to the same category. Road Wizard (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The
    WP:OC). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I said "I can see no reason". Whether you can see a reason or not does not concern me; I am here to put forward my position on the issue, which seems to be shared by a number of other editors. I don't know what your point is with the family category, but if two people are related then that isn't random. What is random is trying to link
      Noemigate simply because they have gate in the article name. Road Wizard (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • From the
        relevant policy: a category may be useful if the people, objects, or places are directly related—for example, a category grouping subarticles directly related to a specific Jones family. Corngate and Flakegate have a lot more in common than Herbert Hoover and John Kerry, whatever family they have in common. Whether you can see a reason or not does not concern me It's a discussion, RW. Rather than be concerned about the finer points of just how related two things that are both scandals are, it would be better to think in a common-sense way about how we make ourselves useful to our readers. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • As I said, I don't understand your example of using those two people, primarily because I know very little about them. If you believe they are incorrectly categorised then you should argue for the category's removal from those pages. Just because
          other articles are set up one way is no excuse to create similar problems here. I would also ask you to avoid assuming that other editors are operating without common sense; common sense is open to interpretation and my common sense says grouping unrelated articles solely for having a similar name will not help the readers. As you believe the two articles have a lot in common, perhaps you can enlighten me as to how genetically modified corn in New Zealand relates to using wedding photos to promote a chocolate bar in the UK? From the same policy that you quoted; "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." Road Wizard (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Please avoid assuming what I might be thinking. I never said and didn't assume that editors were operating without common sense, I saw that their approach, including your approach, didn't emphasize it as much as the top of every policy and guideline page suggests that we do. The focus of the comments has been on rules, references to past consensus and past practice, but not enough on how we can consult our common sense to do what's most useful for readers. You write, grouping unrelated articles solely for having a similar name will not help the readers, but I've already made the point that the articles have at least as much in common as the articles in
            List of scandals with "-gate" suffix makes clear). As Tarc's and Orderinchaos's comments indicate, naming something "-gate" is a controversial practice itself. If we can save readers time and distraction in finding the article on the "-gate" subject they're interested in, they can concentrate on the subject itself, perhaps including whether or not "-gate" is useful in naming scandals about tuna, political funds or call girls. That last quote of yours from the guideline had a purpose to it: to help the reader by avoiding clutter. But the category doesn't result in clutter, or confusion, or distraction, or anything else that hurts the reader or the encyclopedia, and I've shown that it can help. That's a common-sense approach that avoids abstractions of policy that interfere with helping readers. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • I am not assuming what you are thinking, I am responding to what you are writing. Quote, "Rather than be concerned about the finer points... it would be better to think in a common-sense way". If you did not mean to respond to my comment by asking me (and perhaps others) to start thinking in a common sense way, then perhaps you should not have written that sentence? I also disagree with the points you have raised; the only thing you have proven so far is that you are passionate about this subject. One of the reasons we operate by consensus is to judge the correct interpretation of a policy or guideline. Rather than accusing other people of trolling as you have done below, you should perhaps ask yourself why so many established editors disagree with your interpretation. Road Wizard (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse repeated deletion Following from a general invitation at
  WP:AUSPOL - Aside from the consensus issue, which I agree with, I can only speak for my country but most of the ones here are a product of lazy journalism rather than common naming, are utterly unrelated to each other and it would probably not be difficult to find a more encyclopaedic name for the articles which would reflect the low public usage of the names. I don't know anyone who calls our involvement in the oil-for-food program "Wheatgate" (it's generally called "the AWB affair" or the "AWB scandal"), although both "Utegate" and "Iguanagate" got a run in the press. Orderinchaos 23:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Since we know that some of these names are the most common ones used for certain scandals, it's irrelevant to this discussion that others aren't. It isn't our job to "find a more encyclopaedic name", it's policy to
    use the common name. As for "utterly unrelated", see my comment just a little below with the same timestamp. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion and salt if necessary. Those wishing to restore have been unable to articulate just why the
  WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES guideline should be set aside. Tarc (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Is Category:Scandals next on the chopping block? After all, there isn't any more connection between articles in that category than there would be in this one. How is one a collection of "random" or "unrelated" articles and not the other? Lot's of talk here about trivial points like former consensus, but nobody else here has addressed the most important issue, usefulness to readers — what we're supposed to be about here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Being able to navigate from one contrived "-gate" controversy to the next doesn't seem particularly useful to the overall reading audience. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, apart from being graced with a cliched and catchy title by the drive-by media. Tarc (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You're ignoring every point I made, starting with this one [12] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Rejecting your points does not mean I ignored your points. You already waltzed this pedantic dance with Good Ol’factory earlier; we don't need to see Round 2, thanks. Tarc (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Commenting as if points hadn't already been addressed (about policy[13], or usefulness [14]) is ignoring them. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Explaining an opinion helps in convincing others and reaching consensus. [15] And you're trolling, both on the page and in your last edit summary.[16] You've done this before. This is my last off-topic comment to you on this page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You are interpreting a guideline one way, and nearly everyone else seems to be interpreting it another way. You aren't being ignored, Noroton, your point of view is simply being rejected. There is quite a difference, and it would do you some good to learn that rather than make personal attacks and call other users trolls. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You've provided me with no evidence that you're even thinking about the guideline (hardly anyone else has, either), much less interpreting it. Still trolling, I see. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Use of "-gate" isn't an irrelevant coincidence that some scandals happen to share. Ever since William Safire started using it for scandals after Watergate, it's been used in developing controversies, usually with the pattern of (1) a partisan, enemy or commentator coining the word to show that some allegation or revelation is scandalous -- in some way akin to previous "-gate" scandals; (2) there's a period where some people use the word and some don't, depending on whether they want to characterize it as a scandal -- responsible news organizations hold off until there are enough facts that the situation can be reliably called a scandal or something very worthy of suspicion; (3) when enough facts come out to establish that it's a scandal or very suspicious, most news organizations use the term, and it's later picked up by historians and others, even those sympathetic to the people charged in the scandal. So when it becomes the name of an event, it tells the reader something about how that event is widely perceived. This isn't the only thing going on -- scandals can be hard to name in a brief way, and lazy journalism can certainly be involved. The best way for our readers to consider any of this in relation to the subject they're interested in is to have a category for the "-gate" articles, or at least to the list article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The name of a controversy is not a defining characteristic. So far you have been unable/unwilling to address this point. Tarc (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I just did. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid not, no, and I'm sad to say that you're on the verge of

  WP:SYNTH territory. Tarc (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse repeated deletion - particularly because the "-gate" suffix and the word "scandals" violate
  WP:WTA and so such constructs should be discouraged. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - not only does this seem to be well-covered by
  WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, but just because "*-gate" has become a linguistic phenomenon isn't a reason to use it as a categorization. Not all scandals are -gates, after all. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 21:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse the long standing consensus is that categories based on shared name are deleted, which was correctly applied here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad question for DRV. It's a hard question. DRV doesn't help resolve hard questions. Suggest fleshing out a parent article, incorporating a list, for such a category before again making a case for a category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. I would say that these are not random events sharing the same name, they are scandals that reach a certain level of notability to get the moniker. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what exactly is that level of notability? If it is not objective then it should not be used for a category. I'd argue that it is entirely arbitary in that the level of notability has nothing to do with he use of the ending. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse
  guidelines and in light of consensus as expressed in a long line of past Cfd discussions". Simply asserting that consensus can change means little in the absence of any evidence that it has and the presence of evidence pointing to a consistent history of rejection of this type of category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sceabhar na dheasa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Currently doing post graduate research in Irish history and would like to see a temporary review of what this article contained. Just briefly. Many thanks Ian Pender (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you enable email on your account then an admin can email you the article's contents. Hut 8.5 21:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something's a bit strange here - the article was created by you, was two sentences in length, included your name, and was deleted as a hoax. While I could send you the contents at your talk page, I'm inclined to conclude this request too is a hoax. Orderinchaos 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email it to Ian Pender. Point out to Ian Pender that he can enable email, and receive emails, without any risk of anyone discovering his email address. Email addresses are only revealed when you send. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]