- Category:Wikipedians by political ideology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)
Debate was closed contrary to a rough 2:1 (11:5) consensus to keep, and the points the closing admin says were not addressed in favor of deletion were in fact addressed. Thus, I can only conclude the "Delete All" verdict is in this case in error Ramdrake 13:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and restore, as a mistaken closure. There was a clear consensus that the categories should stay, and the claim that they are divisive was clearly addressed (if anything, they reveal an editor's biases). Many of the "delete" arguments were trivial and should have been discarded in assessing the debate, such as the terse "Bilge. Delete." (why???)
The closing admin cited WP:ENC as the argument unaddressed, but while WP:ENC sounds impressive, it is not a policy or a guideline or even an essay: it is merely a set of links, mostly to WP:NOT. The editor who cited it seemed to regard a link to logout as a helpful argument (it seems to me to be a non-argument), and suggested that "categorization should only be used to the extent that it aids in writing an encyclopedia". Galloglass's response addressed that "aids in writing" point very clearly: he said "there is nothing messianic or even proselytizing about any of these cats, just a simple statement of where the user is coming from". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and restore, as per BrownHairedGirl's points, which sum up the debate much better than I could.--Ramdrake 14:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by closing admin. The keep/delete ratio is not the determining factor here, in my opinion. I thought that all the participants engaged in the discussion in good faith, but my assessment of the debate is that the rationales for keeping the categories don't outweigh the arguments in favor of deletion.
- Several of the rationales didn't raise or refute policy concerns (BMF81, Tony Sidaway, Sefringle). Some of the keep rationales implicity agreed with the assessment that these categories could be divisive (Geoglass, Michaellinear, Arthur Rubin, tariqabjotu). BrownHairedGirl also implicitly accepts this in her opinion above on this page. Mike Selinker and Sefringle stated an opinion to keep but didn't address the deletion rationales at all. I also considered Dmcdevit's original deletion log entry as an argument for deletion, since it was listed by BrownHairedGirl with her procedural listing of the categories.
- Picaroon's deletion rationale – that, per WP:NOT, this is not a social networking site, and categories must contribute to the encyclopedia – is a fundamental policy concern, mirrored by Dmcdevit's deletion log entry. Only BrownHairedGirl and Haemo spoke directly in favor of the categories as a tool for collaboration. DGG agreed with BrownHairedGirl but went on to say that, for this purpose, the categories could be replaced by watching a person's edits. That argument, that other methods would be sufficient, was not addressed by any deletion rationale. A suggestion to rename, rather than delete, seems not to have consensus. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know... I think I would interpret several of those differently, tariqabjotu in particular. And there were several comments reaffirming the latitude that we tend to give userspace, as well, which wasn't addressed in the closure (since one could presume that such comments are in opposition to the supposition that WP:NOT applies.) - jc37 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- These categories are not in user space, as Black Falcon stated higher in the debate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, but I believe that the commenters' meaning could easily be inferred, in this case. Especially since it's been made clear that all Wikipedian categories must be sub-cats of Category:Wikipedians and must show that in their naming. So we could easily suggest that such subcats are being treated as we treat pages in userspace. - jc37 14:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the distinction between permissible user boxes and permissible user categories illustrates that user categories do not have the broad latitude given to user space. I agree that the idea behind that particular rationale is that these categories should be protected because they are related to personal expression, but I don't believe personal expression is a primary goal of user categories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, what I was talking about above was an attempt to possibly discern what those who commented were attempting to convey. I just am wondering if possibly at least one aspect of the discussion was ignored or at least deemed as "irrelevant", even if it seemed that it might be a pervading POV. - jc37
- Comment: I would like to point out that the same arguments (divisiness, non-encyclopeadicity) were also brought up for "Category:Wikipedians by language" and "Category:Wikipedians by religion", and that both these categories were kept. I don't think the "divisiveness" rationale holds any more for this category than it does for either of the two aforementioned ones: stating one's political grounds should simply be seen as a statement of where one is coming from, and seen in that light, self-labeling by political ideology (we're talking voluntary self-labeling here, let's be clear: no one is forced to use these categories against their wish) can indeed be encyclopaedically useful to achieve NPOV on politically charged issues. I also think that not addressing a point raised by someone else should not be automatically construed as "implicitly accepting the point"; there are a variety of other possible interpretations.--Ramdrake 14:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. By "implicitly accept" I mean comments such as "This is hardly divisive anyways", "However I have to break the news to you, we don't live in a POV free world and every one of us has a POV.", "My point is, people claim these are divisive, that's politics!", "Who actually has a problem with these types of categories because they themselves find them polemic?". — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Carl, the point you miss here is that just about any user category could be divisive; there was no evidence that these ones are more divisive than (for example) user categories by religion or nationality or sports club or taste in music, and several arguments that they do make a useful contribution to the encyclopedia by helping editors to declare any bias. The arguments on both sides might usefully have been developed further, but the fundamental arguments for deletion (viz that the categories are divisive) are countered by Arthur Rubin's point that "stated bias is better than unstated bias". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- PS, it also seems quite perverse to take MichaelLinnear's comment that "This is hardly divisive anyways" as an acceptance that these categs are divisive. "Hardly" can mean either "just a very little bit" or (in a commonly-used British, sarcastic sense) "absolutely not at all", as in "Vladimir Putin is hardly as big a rock star as Mick Jagger". Either way, it's not an acceptance of the claim of divisiveness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe that "one more" moderate keep rationale would have changed the outcome of the debate. Several more keep rationales that addressed the policy concerns would have changed it. The situation is different with the closed debate on Wikipedians by religion, where I believe quite a few of the keep rationales address the policy concerns. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- The point is, the outcome of the debate was a clear consensus to "Keep". And since the Wikipedians by religion debate was on the same page, it is entirely possible that people avoided repeating themselves in this debate, as they saw the same points in need of being addressed. Politics, religion, language, ethnicity are all matters of identity, and yes we are all different. I don't see how one can find any of these categories "divisive", unless one also finds the fundamental act of affirming one's identity "divisive" (for crying out loud, we're not all robots!).--Ramdrake 15:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Wikipedians by religion debate, which I looked through in some detail, appeared to me to have no consensus, and the arguments there appeared stronger than in the political ideologies debate. It is also possible that people felt more strongly about the religious categories, and not as strongly about the politics categories – we can't answer hypothetical questions about why editors didn't give their opinion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Wikipedians by religion debate has a 24:7 consensus to keep. Not sure how you could read that it reached "no consensus", although admittedly some editors in favor of deletion were very argumentative (and took up a lot of space). In any case, in the specific case of the Wikipedians by political ideology, I don't see that there was a consensus to delete either (which is not to be mistaken with a no-consensus to restore).--Ramdrake 15:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Carl, the "policy concerns" were remarkably flimsy: an assertion that the categories were divisive, without (so far as I can see) any explanation of how they might be divisive. It hard for anyone to engage in detailed argument against bare assertions, but the counter-arguments were just as solid as the assertions. I am concerned that you appear to have approached this closure with a presumption that the deleters had found a policy which was relevant, and had indicated how it was relevant: it appears to me that neither your closure rationale nor your subsequent explanations here test that assumption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- (←) Yes, I do believe that the delete rationales brought up relevant policy concerns; if they did not, the nomination would have been speedily closed as keep. There were two concerns, as I indicated in the closing statement: that the categories are unencyclopedic (WP:NOT), and that they are divisive (WP:NPOV). Note that WP:NPOV applies to "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content" (my emphasis). As I have said, not only several oppose rationales but several keep rationales implicitly accepted that the categories violate the NPOV policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Carl, surely all user categories are unencyclopedic (editors are not themselves encyclopedic) and potentially divisive (by attributing to some wikipedians attributes not shared by others)? My point is that the nominators did not explain why these categories are more unencylopedic or more divisive than others: if those arguments are sufficient, why not just mass-delete all user categories? You appear to have inferred a case which the advocates of deletion did not actually make, but insisted in your closure that nothing positive should be inferrred from the keep votes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Carl, if the user categories are deemed to be "encyclopaedic content", then article talk pages are even more so to be encyclopaedic, which means no one has the right to discuss their opinions on Wikipedia (since opinions are by definition the expression of a POV and aren't NPOV). Surely, that can't be what you meant?--Ramdrake 16:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- The current consensus on WP is that not all user categories are unencyclopedic, and decisions must be made on a case by case basis. Presumably, this means that not all categories are considered by consensus to be divisive. The purpose of this UCFD debate was not to make a decision about all user categories, however, only the ones that were the subject of this debate. I fear BrownHairedGirl and Ramdrake are looking for consistency that does not exist. Ramdrake's concerns about freedom of expression are excessive for this debate; we are not considering free expression, user space, or article talk pages, only a few user categories. There is consensus, however, the opinions expressed on article talk pages must serve the purpose of building the encyclopedia, rather than merely advocating a particular position. The purpose of this debate was to discuss whether these user categories contribute to the encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to be (I'd say 'wilfully', but I'd fail to WP:AGF) ignoring that there is a consensus of voices (11:5) to keep these user categories, and that an undefeated rationale has been presented to explain why these specific user categories are encyclopedic and serve to build the encyclopedia (as it gives a reference as to the political affiliations of some users, which can in turn be used on some politically-oriented articles which are prone to debate to buld a better NPOV for those articles). While it may not always do so, the contention that these categories are divisive has not been properly sustained: how are they divisive? Are there any concrete examples, or are some editors just stating they are potentially divisive (which is but one undemonstrated POV)? If there are 'any concrete examples, why haven't they been brought forward?--Ramdrake 16:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- My closing decision did not rely on counting votes. You appear to feel the arguments in the keep direction were stronger than I do; perhaps we should allow others to comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn mistaken closure, not the consensus. There were repeated requests during the discussion for those proposing deletion to show just how they have been or could be divisive--there was never any response. DGG 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- The only such query I see is from tariqabjotu, but in his second statement it's clear that he realizes that they can be considered divisive, although he feels they are not too divisive to be kept. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Carl, didn't you just agree to let the other editors comment? Must you argue with each comment in turn?--Ramdrake 18:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Besides, tariqabjotu's second comment read: We need to draw the "divisive line" somewhere, but these categories are not across it. How can you interpret that as meaning that they can be considered divisive, although he (tariqajotu) feels they are not too divisive to be kept?--Ramdrake 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct, in the same manner that the concept of user pages can be considered divisive, but not too divisive to be deleted. That is, they're not divisive at all, but people were citing divisiveness just to beef up the delete rationale; there was no evidence that these categories have actually caused problems. I'm not sure how that reason was not good enough for you. -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse, as this closure is well within the administrator's discretion, and he has given a solid reasoning for the close. And we have here yet another disrespectful listing here, against the recommendations at the top of this page, with no attempt at any prior discussion or resolution before it was listed here. Deletion review does not exist to refight the closures you dislike. These categories are all clearly of no value to the encyclopedia, are uselessly divisive by organizing users according to POV. Others seem to think this should have been decided on the basis of votecounting alone. Dmcdevit·t 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please explain fully how these categories are of no value to Wikipedia, in the light of the explanation around the beginning of this debate as to how they are useful to Wikipedia. Besides, WP:DRV states in point 2 that: Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. and the contention of this DRV is that this is precisely the case here.--Ramdrake 18:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse close Valid Cfd discussion and valid close. FloNight 18:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. The closing admin's analysis is incorrect, and the decision seems to misinterpret policy and guidelines. WP:NPOV only applies to the main namespace, per the second paragraph, and so does not apply. (It might apply to categories which apply to the main namespace, but not to userspace or even talkspace categories.) Being "divisive" is only part of speedy criterion T1, not to general or category deletion criteria. The categories not being encyclopedic (WP:NOT) is irrelevant, as they contribute to editing the encyclopedia, by making biases readily apparent. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn people choose to add these categories to their pages. NPOV is for commenting on third parties, not oneself. Let people pigeonhole themselves as they wish. -N 19:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse close. Should have been straightforward T1 speedies. It's an encyclopedia, folks. --Tony Sidaway 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I can't help but notice that this time, the votes in favor of endorsement bring very little to the discussion except stuff like "good call". Very serious objections have been raised against deletion of the category, however, those in favor seem to have run out of arguments ("good call" isn't exactly a valid endorsement argument).--Ramdrake 19:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- They're cruft, crap, bilge, nonsense, useless for constructing an encyclopedia. Hello! Anybody there? --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- We hear you. However, please note that using rude language (and failing to give a rationale for your position) doesn't give your opinion any more weight than anyone else's.--Ramdrake 23:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion - Policy WP:NOT trumps WP:ILIKEIT. --After Midnight 0001 19:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT does WP:NOT entirely apply to userspace, as noted above and in WP:NOT. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- With due respect to your opinion, my belief is that the category namespace is not user space, and WP:NOT covers the category namespace. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- But then, when WP:CFD and WP:UCFD were "divorced", didn't that in effect make "user category namespace" distinct from plain " main category namespace", just like "user space" is distinct from "main space"?--Ramdrake 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would say that anything in namespace 2 ("User") or 3 ("User talk") is in user space, and nothing else is. UCFD versus CFD is unrelated to namespaces. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- The split between CFD and UCFD occurred not for any policy reasons. but simply because UCFDs tend to be an area of specialization which many CFD users care to not participate in. Also, CFDs and UCFDs together overwhelmed one page, so there was too much discussion to process through for some users. Finally, clean up of CFDs usually involves simple deletes and renames which are easily processed as opposed to UCFDs which require more editing of templates port-decision. --After Midnight 0001 12:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn I recall prior discussions about these types of category. An example is Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/March 2007#Wikipedians by Politics I (keep). That was not linked in the UCfD discussion. Nor were the three prior discussions for the (as then extant) entire group at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 18#Category:Wikipedians by politics (keep), Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 4#Category:Wikipedians by (subjective categorization) (no consensus), Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19#Category:Wikipedians by politics and all subcategories (no consensus). Now, it has been a year, so consensus might have changed. Failure in this UCFD to address the keep arguments made in those discussions makes this discussion violate Wikipedia:Consensus#"Asking the other parent", so we don't actually know if the consensus has changed. The closer has also shown no awareness of the prior discussions reasons for keeping. Overall, I therefore conclude that we have to overturn because no clear consensus for deletion has been established. GRBerry 20:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. Like all things on Wikipedia, policy is interpreted through the lens of consensus. Whether or not these are divisive or unencyclopedic is an interpretation that should be made through discussion and consensus. The CFD does not demonstrate such a consensus and hence the closure is in error. Dragons flight 00:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. How in hell do 6 deletes, 6 keeps, 1 weak keep and 4 strong keeps amount to a decision to delete? I'm new to all this but surely the onus is on the party proposing change to prove their assertions that the categories are divisive or POV-pushing. Neither of these points was demonstrated in the debate, indeed the deletionists' comments seemed to add a fair amount of heat but little light. The fact that userpages and userboxes provide alternative ways of showing affiliation doesn't constitute an argument against categories doing this too. Some people prefer one method, some another, and if one is ok, all are. I raised this point and I don't think it was answered anywhere in the debate. Neither was the point that deleting categories isn't going to make a blind bit of difference if people are determined to seek out users of a particular persuasion for non-encyclopedic purposes. (Just follow "What links here" from the relevant userbox template!) This is clearly an unfinished debate. We establish our arguments through consensus, or what are these discussions for? Gnostrat 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn - I don't see a "rough consensus for deletion" here at all. — Omegatron 05:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse per closing admin's comments. --Kbdank71 10:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. Oh, for Pete's sake. Can't anyone in this just let a discussion go to the end, and then close it according to the will of those who voted? In this case, the discussion was clearly a no consensus, half the people making arguments for it and half against it. Carl, who as far as I can tell has never been UCFD before, just showed up and closed them all the way he wanted them done. As I said on ANI, consensus is a mandate, not a guideline. Overturn this, close it as no consensus, and sometime down the road, we'll have another debate about it, though with luck, it'll be one that actually pays attention to the people registering their opinions.--Mike Selinker 15:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Absolutely not. Because this is not a vote. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, which is why adherring to a consensus based approach ought to require agreement above and beyond a simple majority. Lately it seems that "it's not a vote" is used to advocate for positions that fail to achieve even a mere majority when given widespread discussion. The expectation is that a consensus for deletion should be shown, and setting aside personal feelings and opinions about policy, I really have no idea how someone can honestly conclude such a consensus was demonstrated in this case. Dragons flight 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not a vote. Which means you need more than just a majority to delete something. You need a rough consensus; general agreement among editors. "Not a vote" doesn't mean "ignore the discussion and close according to your own personal whims". Without consensus the AfD defaults to keep. "These processes are not decided through a head count ... If there is no consensus, the page is kept". "When in doubt, don't delete." — Omegatron 17:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is not at all true that you need "more than just a majority" of expressed opinions to support the close. If that were the case, vote-stacking would be trivial. There is a global consensus in favor of policies such as WP:NOT, and it is that global consensus that I was considering when closing this CfD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)^
- The deletion guidelines allow closing admins to discount votes coming from an attempt at vote stacking, especially from anons and SPAs. I recognize nearly all the names here as being rather long-term contributors to Wikipedia. Please note that the deletion guidelines don't allow any other possible exception to ignore consensus, except if there are very strong reasons (such as a copyright violation) to act otherwise (and so far, nobody has claimed that, that I'm aware). I believe it is obvious that there was a rough consensus on the side of keep (in any case, there was no consensus to delete), and the closing admin closed this one in error.--Ramdrake 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- It simply isn't a vote; the final count doesn't matter. My opinion remains that the global consensus on WP:NOT is what matters here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure as per closing admin's rationale. Very valid. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure. As such categories are expressly forbidden by policy, any attempts to change this ought be directed to the appropriate page.Proabivouac 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Perhaps you can name the policy. I can't find anyone so far naming a policy which actually applies to these categories. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- The policies I cited in my closing comments were WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Quite. They clearly do not apply to userspace and user categories. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- As I have stated, I don't believe any part of the Category: namespace is userspace. See the lede of WP:USER. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- That is patently false. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a blog.2C webspace provider.2C or social networking site, the policy cited above in his explanation, is most definitely about the user space: "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." Perhap you should read it and not make big bolded statements about them that are wrong. Dmcdevit·t 22:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Obviously, for the umpteenth time, WP:NOT would apply only if the categories had no collaborative value besides for social networking. The argument has been made in these pages time and again that political ideology is a valid category for collaborating on politically-related articles. If you put WP:NOT in front of the collaborative value of the category (any category, for that matter), you might as well delete ALL user categories as they can all be used for social networking. Pardon my French, but this is a clear case of shit or get off the pot. Apologies in advance to all those whom these words may have offended.--Ramdrake 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overthrow (following Arthur Rubin) as decided without any basis in policy. DGG 21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- DGG, you already !voted. -- tariqabjotu 01:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn Radical usurptions of !vote counts should only occur when points by one side are completely amiss. That is not the case here. The keep side may not have linked to WP:NOT and WP:ENC as many times as the delete side, but that does not mean the keep side should automatically be discounted as ignoring points outright and not refuting the other side. Similarly, one should not automatically assume that because various policies were linked from the delete side, their statements hold more weight, especially enough to knock down the "keep" side (surely we all can point to a time when someone has pointed out some policy even when it didn't apply well). Unfortunately, Carl appears to have taken care to deconstruct the arguments from the keep side without doing the same for the opposing side. Thus, this decision does not represent consensus at all. If Carl feels some points regarding divisiveness and encyclopedic significance are less worthy than others, that's fine. However, the closing statement of a deletion request is not the place for him to say that. That instead belongs on a talk page, where more detailed conversation can occur. -- tariqabjotu 01:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn Closure took no accout of what had been said in the discussion. Closing admin merely imposed their own opinion without taking any note of the arguments in favour of retention, implying as they were of no note as they were not in agreement with their own. Galloglass 15:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment there are many WPedians in these categories, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. The thought that a dozen people here or a CDS can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. One ed. doesnt think it helps social function; hundreds think otherwise. There are better things to do than trying to delete inoffensive categories. I think it might be a good idea to ask the individual users here for comments--it affects them, it does not affect the deletors--or me. DGG 23:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion — Certainly not helpful to the writing of the encyclopedia; if anything, it severely inflames tensions. The "I like it" "rationales" for overturning this deletion do not appeal to me. We need to be strict with the use of the category system; after all, it was created to categorize the encyclopedic content, and its misuse for categorizing users by political affiliation is nothing short of abuse. --Cyde Weys 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Violates WP:NOT; Not encyclopedic; does not help the project. Good call by closing admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and restore. No valid reason for deletion. Original decision was reached simply out of editor's taste. Owen 08:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion per Cyde. Policy and common sense trump WP:ILIKEIT, especially when this junk is contrary to the project's goals. MER-C 09:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I must point out that so far, nobody has shown (by diffs or other real-life Wikipedia examples) that this category is against the project's goal or in any way divisive, despite editors requesting proof of this repeatedly.--Ramdrake 10:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- As per my comment on the religious categories, undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
|
