Misplaced Pages

Gang stalking (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

With sites like Ask.fm being in the news, and multiple new sources coming to light about alleged "Internet trolling" really being gang stalking, this article should be undeleted, and should not redirect to Stalking. It's protected, so I can't edit it, and we should put this back up at AfD. It is clearly notable. Homeontherange (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to some of these new sources rather than just a vague wave to them being there? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Dating Reality and Things (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page should not have been speedily-deleted; sources were provided, and it should have been taken to AFD. It was very clearly not CSD A7 or G11, and notability criteria is met. Homeontherange (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse, textbook A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse, I am usually pretty good at finding a justification for why A7 doesn't apply, but there is nothing I can grasp on to in this case. Claiming that the article meets the notability criteria is really pushing outside good faith territory. Monty₈₄₅ 18:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:LGBT_Roman_Catholics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The majority opinion was not to delete. Two editors supported deletion; three editors opposed deletion; one editor called for a review of each article; one editor suggested a purge of articles not directly including LGBT material.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Closer's comment: it was my view that those arguing for deletion made stronger arguments on policy grounds. The contents are biographies and for the living subjects WP:BLP issues are clearly important. It was accepted that the inclusion of various dead members was also debatable. Purging the category would only address these issues at one point in time, leaving exposure to future abuse of the category. A list is a far better place for this information as grounds for inclusion can be explicitly stated, cited and discussed. A list can also be much more informative, with sections or table columns for historical period, occupation etc. I left a link to the diffs, in order to facilitate creating such a list. – Fayenatic London 13:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  I'm a bit confused by your closing statement where you say "Although there is no consensus, the arguments for deletion included strong policy...". If there was no consensus, why wasn't it closed as such? which would normally default to keeping whatever the current status quo is. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  To be honest I miscounted the !votes, being led by Mannanan51's first line "Delete: Agree with Solntsa90, John Pack Lambert, and Peterkingiron for reasons stated" to overstate the number advocating deletion. Although there was no consensus about the best outcome, there was a consensus that there were major problems with the category, as even its defenders agreed that it needed reviewing, and the last contributor Willthacheerleader18 referred to it as an "article" rather than a category. These points led me to conclude that the major problems were insuperable as a category, and would best be resolved by deleting it and replacing it with a list (article).

  The proposal to review would not deal with problems like Pope Benedict IX is not an "LGBT" Catholic, neither is Ludwig II of Bavaria; However, I do see the usage of it's inclusion. That seems to provide a good example of something that could be documented in a list. A list can state its inclusion criteria, and include sections for related criteria that do not meet the main ones. A review/purge would not provide any mechanism for future review of additions to the category, whereas a list article can be added to your watchlist. – Fayenatic London 20:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm finding this close difficult to justify. The main argument in the CFD was that the category is being anachronistically applied to historical figures that don't fit into modern conceptions of sexuality, with a secondary concern raised that the category is being more broadly applied incorrectly where either the LGBT or Roman Catholic status of the individual is not verified (and the veracity of historical sources on this issue for long-dead figures is also drawn into this argument). Neither of these arguments seem germane to me on whether the category should be deleted, as it's all a question of cleanup, as even the nominator and one of the discussion participants seemed to recognize by asking for "review" of its contents and "purging". And no one disputed (and no one could dispute) that there are or have been plenty of notable individuals who were verifiably LGBT and verifiably Roman Catholic. Only the "keep" !voters addressed why this particular intersection should be categorized, which in my mind would be the central question for deletion. So I'm not seeing any real arguments for deletion here, let alone "stronger" ones, and numerically the keep and delete !voters were roughly the same, even excluding the "purge" recommendations that should be read as "keep but cleanup".

  I'm particularly concerned by the closer raising BLP as a relevant deletion concern when none of the participants did, and this is merely an intersection category of two characteristics (sexual identity and religion) of which we do permit categorization if properly sourced for each individual. Without discussion on the relevance and application of BLP policy to this CFD nomination (and no indication given as to how that policy might clearly dictate a deletion result here), it is at the very least inappropriate for the closer to invoke it as if for added weight. And though I'd personally agree that lists should be preferred for documenting such facts of demographic or personal identity, that's not a proper deletion rationale for this category (nor was it raised in the CFD) so long as the Category:LGBT people and Category:People by religion trees exist as this category does nothing but merge column A with column B.

  In light of all this, I'd support relisting to focus on the intersection question, or overturning to "keep". postdlf (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was taking policies into account whether or not they were brought up by the participants. I always thought that was a fine thing for a closer to do.

I believe you will find no bias in my contributions either regarding LGBT or Roman Catholics.

It looks like I goofed here. I admitted above that I miscounted, and explained why. In my defence all I can say is that CFD currently has the worst backlog that I can remember, see WP:CFDAC, with some discussions still not closed after 3 months despite asking for help on the admin noticeboard. You can see from my RfA that I was dragged into adminship to help with CFD. So, as I currently have a bit of time, whereas most of the CFD regulars seem to be taking a break, I've been putting effort into clearing the backlog where I was not conflicted. The recent page history of CFDAC and WP:CFDW show this. I closed 6 in fairly quick succession on the July 6 page, tackling others before this one as it was problematic. I always look to see if I can extract something useful from a lack of consensus, but this seems to have been a bold step too far. I'm happy to co-operate in re-listing it, and if necessary with restoring the previous members. – Fayenatic London 19:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Kudos to the closer for admitting error and offering to help clean up. Is there any need to wait out the full 168 hours before the inevitable restore and relist?—S Marshall T/C 22:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)