Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 7

Regarding the Erdos number categories
I'm concerned about the following issues:


 * The original closing admin explained in much detail that he was going on the basis of the side that had stronger arguments, not the side that had the majority of votes, and the DRV-closing admin didn't seem to address this (and didn't address the next two points either.)
 * In the discussion on the DRV page, the "overturn" voters seemed to focus mostly on rehashing the arguments for deletion and on the purported support for these categories among mathematicians, rather on arguments relevant to the original closing admin's actions. It doesn't seem to me that any cogent argument as to why the original closing admin acted wrongly was given. Perhaps the DRV-closing admin had a reason to think that the "overturn" voters had a good argument beyond "we like these categories", but he didn't state it if so.
 * There was extensive canvassing among people who were likely to support overturning, and on WP:ANI, concern was expressed that this rendered the entire DRV invalid. The DRV-closing admin didn't address this either.

I'd like to hear from the DRV-closing admin about these concerns. SparsityProblem 05:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments SparsityProblem, and for bringing your concerns to my attention. I am willing to reverse the decision based on some of the concerns you have brought and to have this review relisted. nat Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice. 05:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (Weak?) keep An eminent mathematician who is also a regular Wikipedian said Erdos numbers are a joke.  But that's no reason not to take them seriously.  They're a cultural meme that needs to get reported.  I have often pointed out that Wikipedia categories are vastly inferior to lists, but maybe categories are a good way to handle something like this; lists may be too sophisticated for this occasion. Michael Hardy 07:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Michael, I'm not sure I understand your position; "keep the category" or "keep the ruling to delete the category". Also I think the new Deletion Review is elsewhere, this is only discussion about what happened to the old (day before yesterday) deletion review, which was closed after 4 days, sooner than most of us expected. Also I'd appreciate a citation to the "emminent mathematician" quote going around. I agree that Erdos Numbers participate in the nature of a joke, and an apt comparison has been made to Bourbaki, but certain fine distinctions confuse the issue for oursiders, IMO. Also of course the fact that mathematicians are not monolithic on this, as we might be about the proof of a theorem. I'm sure some mathematicians think it's a joke and would say so, but we shouldn't spread that without a citation. If you have trouble finding the current Deletion Review please feel free to drop a note on my Talk page. Normally I would respond at yours but complaints have been made about my campaigning and I have to research the constraints. Thanks, Pete St.John 03:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote we're talking about is here. It's not that hard to find. SparsityProblem 18:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sparsity, yeah, I remember R.E.B.; I was thinking that he wasnn't being used as the example, anymore, on account of the "emminent mathematician" part, the conection between the wikipedian and the mathematician not being public. I will however grant you that there exists a wikipedian who is also an emminent mathematician, and who openly acknowledges the connection, and who doubts the usefulness of the EN categories. There are counterexamples of course. As I explained above, mathematicians aren't monolithic about this, it's not a theorem in a formal axiom system. My claim is, generally, the consensus of readers and contributors of math bios want to keep the category, and more specifically, that Kbdank71 did not act according to consensus when he deleted the category (I'm trying to prove "no apparent consensus to delete" by amply demonstrating "clear consensus to keep", as illustrated by the long succession of overwhelming "votes"). Pete St.John 18:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that the "Notable Wikipedian" tag was removed from the talk page of the article about him a few days ago. It's true that mathematicians aren't monolithic, but it nevertheless remains that the only professional mathematician, as far as I can tell, who has commented on this discussion says that Erdos numbers are a joke, which doesn't lead me to give to much credence to the idea that mathematicians love the idea of having articles about mathematicians and scientists organized in this way. There may be other professional mathematicians who have commented who haven't identified themselves as such. Of course, even if all professional mathematicians thought these categories should stay, that would mean nothing, since Wikipedia is governed by the consensus of all its editors, and experts on a particular subject domain don't get to demand that exceptions about broad guidelines be made for articles in their particular subject domain. They just get the same say as everyone else. SparsityProblem 19:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course there is more than one mathematician participating in this discussion. --Ramsey2006 20:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any other people participating in this discussion to whom one or more of the following criteria applies: (1) holding a doctorate in mathematics, (2) being employed as a mathematics researcher, (3) being employed as a professor of mathematics. SparsityProblem 20:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to your level of awareness. --Ramsey2006 21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you can't, but if someone else who is a professional mathematician is participating and chooses not to identify themselves as such, that's their right, but they can't have their cake and eat it too by expecting others to take it on faith that there are professional mathematicians participating in this discussion. Of course, as I reiterate, it's not particularly relevant to begin with, but others have made an issue out of the idea that a small cadre of hostile "deletionists" who don't understand mathematical culture is out to persecute a group of innocent, fun-loving mathematicians. SparsityProblem 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Relevant or not, in an attempt to improve your level of awareness, I will repeat myself. There is more than one mathematician involved in this discussion. --Ramsey2006 21:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Until I see someone else assert that they are a professional mathematician (I don't expect proof, just a reasonable amount of credibility), I will stand by my assertion that "only one professional mathematician has been involved in this discussion". SparsityProblem 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, good grief. I suppose that I'll have to out myself just to put an end to this silliness. I'm a professional mathematician. --Ramsey2006 21:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your honesty. SparsityProblem 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which one? I've published theoretical mathematics in a peer-review journal (I've served as a reviewer, and I've been cited in the publications of others), I have a graduate degree (but not a PhD), I have been employed by accreditted universities to teach mathematics (I currently work as a software developer), no I'm not emminent, and I do not have a (finite) Erdos Number. A hallmark of a bad debate is when one side never concedes any point, no matter how obvious. Above, I conceded that an emminent mathematician cum wiki contributor dismisses the utility of the category (not the same as saying how he'd "vote"). It isn't necessary to prove it, I think most of us would concede that at least one such exists, or might as well, somewhere. If you want a list of mathematicians who oppose the deletion, by all means ask at the Math-Project talk page. Pete St.John 21:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * addendum during the edit conflict Sparsity seems to have conceded that point, so, thanks. Pete St.John 21:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what just happened. Was the deletion overturned, and then one person complains, and it gets un-overturned? How exactly does this fit into the consensus building process? All of SparsityProblem's concerns were brought up in the DRV. Repeating them here seems to have gotten him his way, and I'm concerned as to how exactly this happened. --Cheeser1 17:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am also confused. I have politely asked nat for an explanation on his talk page. Gandalf61 09:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I must apologize for this "flip-flop" in decision, as I may have been too hasty when I closed this DRV . As well, I might have also overlooked several complains raised during the DRV. That is why I overturned my overturn of the deletion to allow for a relisting of the review on a new date. Again, I apologize for the sudden flip-flop. nat Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice. 09:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please consider the consequences of the flip-flop. The new deletion review does not have the huge, huge number of arguments and explanations and votes of the previous one. As there had been two previous attempts to delete the category, and all three plainly had not consensus to delete, there is a widespread concern that issue is being rail-roaded. In my opinion this aggravates the concern. Have you notified all the contributors to the prior deletion review that their contribution has been nullified? Do some people read reviews, cast their votes, and then move on, or is it assumed that everyone who matters has it in their watchlist? Pete St.John 16:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Why did you create a new list instead of simply reverting your (possibly hasty) closure? I think SparsityProblem and I agree (uncharacteristically) that the review should have stayed open longer. One admin (I can get the quote from my talk page if you need it) opined that the faulted campaigning will sort itself out over time, if I stop, which I did. In fact I welcome the opposition taking time to drum up support, as I seek a clear and definitive resolution. Pete St.John 16:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, any XfDs or DRVs are not "votes" but discussions, although the quantity of people participating often plays a part in the outcome of the discussions. Secondly, I did not create a new list, I suggested it. Thirdly, I felt that the review, that opened on the 7th of November, (and this was after I closed the review) had been tainted by a breach of WP:CANVASS, as pointed out by Brownhairgirl and SparsityProblem, and by the fact that you were "druming up support". That is why I overturned my overturning of the deletion, so that a new review can be set up at a new date. And again, I did not open any new review, I just suggested it.  nat  Lest  We   Forget.   Remember the sacrifice. 18:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering. First, yes, I've been sloppy with the term "votes"; I mean "comments expressed in the form of votes, towards building consensus as opposed to ruling by majority". I don't think I'm misleading anyone by calling them "votes" but since I'm relatively new, and don't always express myself well in terms of wiki-guideline-legalism, it's natural to clarify that for me.
 * The "taint" you mention was addressed by the ANI (or plural ANIs, depending on interpretation) which Brownhairdgirl brought against me, and which are addressed there. Are you acquainted with those, and did you review them before acting? they specifically are on the subject of this "tainting" and have been addressed already by other admins. Thanks, Pete St.John 03:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)