Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 28

28 August 2023

Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nui – Endorsed; no prejudice against recreation of the category and initiation of a new CfD discussion. DRV is as much a consensus-based process as any other, and despite some editors making good arguments for overturning the long-ago CfD here, the clear consensus is for endorsing that past outcome. However, there is also sufficient support for allowing recreation and a new discussion that any editor should feel free to restore the category and request cessation of bot-emptying pending a new consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 02:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nui (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Original CfD discussion was in 2016, on a spurious basis, in part because categories were poorly populated at the time (primarily with foreign dignitaries who already had pages). This led to conclusions that it was "automatically given to elected officials, are souvenirs for visiting foreign officials, or are too common to be defining" and that the recipients were all listed on the award's existing article. The Order of Tahiti Nui is the primary national award of French Polynesia. Its recipients receive significant media coverage for having received the award. Its equivalent to the French Ordre national du Mérite or the New Zealand Order of Merit, and its appropriate for it to have similar categories (e.g. Category:Recipients of the Ordre national du Mérite). Like the French equivalent, it is a defining characteristic of its recipients. Contra the original CfD, it is not "automatically given to elected officials, [a] souvenirs for visiting foreign officials, [or] too common to be defining". A look at a list of recipients shows it to be an actual national award, given to French Polynesians who have distinguished themselves to various levels (plus the usual sucking up to foreign dignitaries that goes with all awards of this nature e.g. Prince Phillip's Order of Australia). A look at that list also makes it clear that the assumptions underlying the original CfD were false. I recreated the category and its subcategories (Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Tahiti Nui‎, Category:Commanders of the Order of Tahiti Nui‎, Category:Officers of the Order of Tahiti Nui‎‎, Category:Knights of the Order of Tahiti Nui‎) a while ago, when building articles for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia/French Polynesia work group. Recipients seemed like good targets for biographies, and like the NZOM, its a good first cut for notability. Since then I've added quite a number of people to these categories - at least 26 from my watchlist, plus other existing articles I had not watchlisted (examples: Maco Tevane, Jean-Marius Raapoto, John Mairai, Lucien Li, Michel Charleux, Matahi Brothers, Suzanne Chanteau, John Martin (Soldier), Andréa de Balmann, Raymond Bagnis). That work was undone by a bot-run based on a 7-year-old CfD today. --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC) Endorse - Orders of chivalry or orders of merit are not defining characteristics. BrownHairedGirl closed the CFD discussion, and BrownHairedGirl was almost always right on the technical details, in particular about categories, and she was right that this order is not defining. She was the expert on a feature that more editors thought that they understood than actually understood, and she had no patience with editors who didn't try to understand guidelines that were not easily understood. She insulted editors who were wrong, but if BHG insulted someone, they were probably wrong; they just deserved to be treated with respect. BrownHairedGirl was almost always right about technical matters. Follow the advice given in the Overcategorization guideline and create lists. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC) Clearly that is not the consensus with regard to the Ordre national du Mérite, Ordre des Palmes académiques, Order of Agricultural Merit, NZOM, or a bunch of British awards (down to the humble Queen's Service Medal or British Empire Medal). So what's different about this one? -- IdiotSavant (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC) Comments/Questions for User:IdiotSavant: See Other Stuff Exists. Has there been a Category Discussion that has found that these categories should exist, or are you simply stating that they exist? (I know that I haven't looked them up.) If the latter, you or anyone else can nominate them for deletion as non-defining categories. If the former, that is, if the categories have been nominated and kept, the conflict might be a basis for reviewing the non-defining category guideline. It appear that more editors don't understand it than do understand it, which may mean that it is too confusing. BrownHairedGirl did understand it. She was almost always right about categories, and was often intolerant of editors who didn't understand. She was banned not for being wrong about categories but for attacking other editors when she was right about categories. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC) The only two categories related to those awards that have been directly discussed at CFD (that I can find) are Category:Recipients of the Ordre des Palmes Académiques and Category:Recipients of the Ordre national du Mérite, both at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 30#Categories of recipients of orders of merit. Category:New Zealand Order of Merit and its subcategories were discussed tangentially at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 21#Category:Recipients of a New Zealand Knighthood, which deleted another category for being redundant to them. 2013 was of course a long time ago, but then, the 2016 discussion used as a basis for the current G4s is also well beyond what drv tends to endorse in any other namespace. —Cryptic 18:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC) I do wish there were some clearly-defined standard as to when G4 applies to old discussions, but as opposed to in mainspace where article subjects can easily become more notable with the passage of time categories really don't become any more defining with the passage of time so there's no inherent reason there should be an age limit. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC) The consensus at CFD for quite a few years is that award categories should be considered individually or in small groups rather than in large group noms since similar sounding award may be very different. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 30#Categories of recipients of orders of merit for an example of this from this year. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) For context, I speedy deleted this per a request at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Process for speedily deleting recreated categories, and then told the bot that does CfD implementation to empty it with a reference to the original CfD, and IdiotSavant made no attempt to discuss this with me. Not that it would have mattered, since I would have felt duty-bound by the past decision and told them to go to DRV. I don't actually have an opinion on the underlying dispute over whether the category should be recreated. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC) I'm not a category geek (I prefer to write articles), and I wasn't tagged in, so I didn't know about that discussion. The first I saw of things was when a bunch of articles showed up on my watchlist as having the deleted categories removed. But at least its provided a spur for the deletion review.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Overturn and note I'm making no decisions on the merits here - this is an old category which was originally deleted with limited discussion, as is the case with CfD, and then re-deleted on an administrative technicality. Since this was functionally a contested speedy deletion - does G4 apply because any re-created category would be fundamentally the same as any previous deleted category? - it seems like the "proper" thing to do would be to undelete, and then anyone can take it to CfD for a new discussion, but perhaps I missed the correct rule on category re-creation... SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC) I don't think it's workable if any cats deleted at CFD can be recreated without consensus and then a new nomination is required. Then why even have CFD? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) I agree in principle, but considering the discussion was six years old, poorly attended, attracted opposition, and is being challenged again with new information, the correct outcome, by my reckoning, in this specific instance, is to have another discussion about it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Endorse (as nominator) WP:SMALLCAT was not the original criteria, WP:OCAWARD was and that's an editing guideline that has been made tougher since 2016 so that "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a #DEFINING characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." Take a look at the Order of Tahiti Nui#Selected recipients and judge for yourself if that high standard is met. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC) That list is rather out of date, as I've only been adding people to it to deorphan things. I guess I should do an update. Of course, that's rather harder now without the category to work from.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC) @Pppery: are you able to share the original category contents with IdiotSavant? - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC) The categories' former contents can be found in JJMC89 bot III's contributions * Pppery * it has begun... 00:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Thanks. I've added the ones I'd missed into Category:Recipients of orders, decorations, and medals of French Polynesia and updated the recipients list. IdiotSavant (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Endorse, but Relist anyway - We're kind of in the cracks in the middle of policy and process here. From what I can tell, technically, this was handled fine. However, categories do get re-created all the time, and end up back at CfD. Since there's often low participation at a particular CfD discussion sometimes, treating this situation like an opposed Prod, probably isn't the worst idea in the world. And, this DRV is likely to turn into CfD mark 2, if we don't just relist. All that said, I think RevelationDirect may be right that this may still end up deleted. But we should probably give it another go-round at CfD to make certain. - jc37 02:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Endorse. I'd find it very hard to believe an order of merit awarded by a subnational collectivity of <300k people could ever be a "defining characteristic", regardless of whichever national awards it's modeled off of. This was correctly assessed as violating OCAWARD. Even the page for the award itself lacks citations to any secondary independent SIGCOV... JoelleJay (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Question - Is the appellant requesting to overturn the closure of the previous CFD in 2017, or to overturn the G4? My previous !vote to Endorse was to endorse the 2017 closure. Overturn the G4 as a matter of not keeping the category salted indefinitely. Allow Recreation of the category and allow a new CFD. The non-defining guideline needs review. Very few editors understand it. BHG understood it. A guideline that is normally misunderstood may be a guideline that should be reconsidered. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I'm wanting to overturn the speedy deletion and restore the status quo ante. Obviously, that might then result in a new CfD. IdiotSavant (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I don't think anyone here disputes that the G4 was fine as a matter of policy, so endorse. I'm sympathetic to the argument that editors should be able to "test" an old consensus every once in a while (along the lines of WP:CCC), but in this case it's very clear to me that a new CfD will lead to the same result, so I think !voting to restore would be an exercise in futility. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC) Endorse. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that, when considered together with the consensus reached at CfD, justifies even more strongly not having this category. That new information is that WP:OCAWARD has become stricter, and I don't see any relevant assertions that this stricter standard is now met. The category would just be deleted if recreated; restoring to see if it would maybe not be deleted after all while knowing that the consensus to delete it has gained extra substantiation relative to when the CfD was closed seems like a bit of an extravagant experiment, because the CfD leading to that outcome would have to be a really terrible CfD, and as such it might then need to be dissected at DRV to see what went wrong, and we're at DRV now.—Alalch E. 00:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC) Endorse and allow recreation without prejudice to a new CfD. I !vote this way mostly as a process thing. We have what appears to be a serious contributor who thinks a poorly attended CfD from 6 years ago should be rediscussed as it impacts his editing. I think that's reasonable. Yes, I think it will likely get deleted again given our current take on the matter. But I think such an editor should be afforded the opportunity to argue their case. And I specifically disagree with the notion that the size of the nation plays a role in if the award can be defining. My sense here is that it probably is not for many, if not most, of the recipients, but not because the nation is small... Hobit (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.