- G4 speedy delete of material recreated after Anti-heroes CfD1 <-- This one now at DRV -- Suntag ☼ 00:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Antiheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) (CfD1) (CfD2)<-- This one now at DRV
Category:Anti-heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) (noted as CfD1 above)
Category:Fictional anti-heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) (CfD1)
The Category:Antiheroes was speedy deleted while at CfD today by User:Postdlf. Despite the fact that consensus at the CfD seemed clearly leaning towards retention of the category based on relevant Wikipedia policy, the category was speedy deleted as a recreation of a category deleted at this CfD nearly two years ago. This CfD in turn was based on a speedy deletion of a an even earlier CfD. The Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_13#Category:Anti-heroes original CfD from March 2006 was created in combination with an AfD of a corresponding list of Antiheroes. For articles, there is a very simple system of recreating deleted content; Articles that had been deleted due to sourcing issues can be recreated as long as the sourcing issues have been addressed. The article List of fictional anti-heroes represents a recreation of the deleted article and provides a list of characters, each one supported by reliable and verifiable sources, with nearly 200 sources for more than 100 fictional antiheroes. Not a single Wikipedia editor would challenge this article's recreation with a rational hope of seeing the article deleted. The justification of deletion for the original category was based on the same absence of sources in the corresponding list. Now that there is a corresponding list with ample reliable and verifiable sources to support the entries included, there is no policy reason to delete the category. Nor should the argument that categories can't have sources be given any weight, as this is a design feature of the category system that would argue for the deletion of every single category in Wikipedia. While other categories for fictional characters have been deleted, those where there is clear evidence that the characteristic is defining and for which there are sources to support the association for individual characters, have generally been kept in compliance with relevant Wikipedia policy. Not only can consensus change, it appears that it already has. Based on the sources provided, this category should be kept. I have no objection to a relist at CfD in which the current category as constructed is reconsidered anew, disregarding the previous CfD results in light of the enormous number of sources available to support the character trait as defining. Alansohn (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. I haven't seen any arguments that overcome the original reason for deletion. That the list is sourced is great, but that just means that the list is sourced; it doesn't mean the category should exist. A category "is a binary system - you're in or you're out - without the possibility of discussion or explanation." --Kbdank71 21:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've provided a wonderful justification to get rid of the entire category system in Wikipedia, lock, stock and barrel. Why is this argument relevant for this category? Can you offer any Wikipedia policy justification for the continued deletion of this category? Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the one asking for it to be recreated. You are. You're the one that needs to come up for an answer to the reason it got deleted in the first place, not me. And I'd love to hear your reasoning behind "a wonderful justification to get rid of the entire category system". Have they all been deleted and recreated when I wasn't looking? --Kbdank71 21:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason the category and corresponding list got deleted in the first place was a lack of sources to support the claim, and that issue has been addressed with ample reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Your're not seriously arguing to use a real world category about real people - Category:Antiheroes - to classify fictional people, are you? I suggest refocusing your efforts towards getting Category:Fictional anti-heroes restored as a subcategory of Category:Antiheroes. As for List of fictional anti-heroes being full of reliable and verifiable sources, it looks like someone entered the name of the fictional character and "anti-hero" in a google search and provided a link to whatever blog or website happened to come to the top of the search. And, instead of using citation templates such as Template:Cite book and Template:Cite web that would reveal the blog/website name of the source, the blog/website name of the sources largely are hidden, making it even more difficult to verify the sourcing of List of fictional anti-heroes. -- Suntag ☼ 21:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would refocus if this wasn't what I thought was being done already. This is (or more accurately, was) a category about fictional characters that corresponds to the list of such fictional characters. I did not create the category, but I would have included the word "Fictional" in the title if I had. If your issue is your uncertainty as to whether this is for fictional characters, I fully support a rename to go along with the restoration of the category. I think you may want to reconsider what it is that you're endorsing. I had been trying to improve the sources in the list and the corresponding article before the decision was made to pull the plug on the category. Alansohn (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - no procedural error in the speedy deletion. Given that there were four editors' comments with two in favor of deletion and two in favor of keeping, the notion that consensus was "clearly leaning towards retention" seems faintly ludicrous. Otto4711 (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you care to address the propriety of the recreation or are you basing your endorse off a CfD result from 2-1/2 years ago? Alansohn (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am basing my comment on the stated function of DRV, which is to assess the correctness of the action taken by the closing administrator. You have not demonstrated that the closing administrator has acted outside his discretion in deleting the category, nor have you presented any new information to demonstrate that the consensus regarding using words like "hero," "villain," "anti-hero" and the like in category names has changed. A 2-2 discussion prior to the speedy delete does not demonstrate a change in consensus, despite your misleading attempts to claim that it does. Otto4711 (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List at CfD I don't see anything egregiously wrong with the deletion, although a G4 of a category is always harder to uphold than for an article (How is a category significantly different from it's deleted form so as to obviate the deletion rationale?). If consensus has changed on this category, then a CfD will show that. Also, I would recommend against splitting or parenting this category with a "real world" category...anti-hero is mainly a fictional term and is applied to real individuals in a figurative sense--not really an NPOV classification. I make no comments here about the category itself, but if this DRV is close, sort this comment into the "endorse" column rather than "overturn". Protonk (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Off topic - Dictionary.reference.com makes no reference to antiheros being fictional. While antihero may be mainly a fictional term, it has a strong secondary real world meaning to the point where people may start intermixing fictional and non fictional characters in the same Wikipedia category. However, that's a naming issue. -- Suntag ☼ 00:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem is that the classification of a real person as an anti-hero is fundamentally figurative. I know that it is used for real people, but we can't make an NPOV classification of it any more than we can make Category:Individuals who are a pain in the ass an NPOv classification. There are thousands of people who have been referred to as a "pain in the ass" by reliable sources, but we probably shouldn't take it at face value. I know that's not what you're suggesting, I'm just trying to clarify my side. As for the naming issue, I would say just have a "fictional anti-heroes" category without a "real" parent/sibling cat. Protonk (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Endorse and relist CfD2 - Once CfD2 started and an editor posted keep reasoning, the page could not be G4 speedy deleted (i) without discussion (ii) in the face of no reasonable doubt as required by Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion since a formal discussion was in progress and included a keep reasoning that raised reasonable doubt. Overturn and relist CfD2 for more input. -- Suntag ☼ 00:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There wasn't "reasonable doubt" that this was a recreation of content previously deleted per a deletion discussion; that's what "reasonable doubt", as used in WP:CSD, would pertain to here. Postdlf (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Also, for pages qualifying for speedy delete there is a suggestion to consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. The category could not be handled per any of the examples listed. It probably should have first been brought to DRV before recreation. We're at DRv now, so, with a formal deletion discussion ongoing and some keep reasoning listed, it seems reasonable to allow CfD2 to finish, particularly since CfD1 was two years ago. -- Suntag ☼ 01:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as closer. I do not believe that consensus has changed regarding this category, or others like it. Instead, there remains a strong consensus to delete or listify categories that attempt to classify fictional characters by such broad types or roles they supposedly play within fiction (see, e.g., this recent CFD) rather than by more concrete, specific traits. Concepts such as these are reliably definable in the general, but application to specific examples is meaningless without explanation or sourcing, which makes categories inappropriate as a means of grouping such purported examples. Lists remain preferred when it's a matter of documenting literary analysis, because it matters who is identifying the characters as such and why; such concepts regarding a character's role are often applied inconsistently, as List of fictional anti-heroes itself explains. See also related CFDs regarding protagonists (and more protagonists), femme fatales, and antagonists. The reasons are still valid that were given in all of those CFDs as to why such character roles/types don't work as categories, and so should be documented only through sourced lists, if at all. Per CSD G4, speedy deletion was appropriate because "any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." Postdlf (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist After this much time, deletion without a rehearing is simply not reasonable. We will find out if consensus has changed by having the CfD, that's what it is for. DGG (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist per DGG, with no opinion on the merits of the speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - re-creation, and no indication from even the discussion as far as it went that consensus had changed. And of course, DRV isn't CFD deux. (But since this has become a common theme in recent DRVs, I ask the closer to take this essay into consideration if/when weighing such discussion.) - jc37 17:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I agree with Otto above. Eusebeus (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per DGG. It would be one thing if this was a (relatively) recent discussion. But as Alansohn points out, consensus can change - and two years is a virtual eternity on Wikipedia. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
