Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 20 September 22 >

September 21[edit]

Category:Law and statistics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 29th. Kbdank71 14:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Law and statistics to Category:Forensic statistics
Nominator's rationale: Merge, significant overlap here. Category:Law and statistics only has a few members. I don't have a strong opinion on which of these two ought to be the target. Btyner (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2008 Television Endings[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted by Pegasus (talk · contribs), reason: "db-catempty". –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2008 Television Endings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is a duplicate from the other category Category:2008 television series endings, there are no articles from this category Category:2008 Television Endings, all of the TV title main articles already have it's category Category:2008 television series endings, The other category Category:2008 television series endings will be kept, and this duplicate category has to be deleted. Steam5 (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could have just marked it for speedy deletion using {{db-catempty}}. --Russ (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I replace it with a speedy deletion template. Steam5 (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBT Hare Krishnas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, without prejudice to recreation if other articles are found/written, and preferably, reliable sources to justify the intersection per the points raised by ism schism and the assertion that to be a Hare Krishna you need to be celibate or straight. Kbdank71 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT Hare Krishnas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: 2nd nomination. Almost two months ago this cat was brought up for discussion. Since then, only one article is in the cat, nor have any others been brought forth. Since there is no article on the subject, and only one cat, this is obviously not a necessary cat. For consideration: WP:N, WP:OC#NARROW, and Wikipedia:OVERCAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and close. This is actually the 3rd nomination in less than 2 months (the second being here). I'm not sure what's behind the ambition to delete the category, but I do think it's inappropriate to continually nominate a category in the hopes that this time, maybe, deletion will result. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Good Ol’factory. Cgingold (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That was a month ago (and I didn't know that it had happened - there is no notice on the talk page). In the past month, no article has been written to show any sort of encyclopedic value to this categorization. No other entries have been added. The cat is still rather POV (see WP:CATGRS and Wikipedia:Categorization of people). Furthermore, in both previous discussions, there was no consensus - WP:CCC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "... in both previous discussions, there was no consensus." Actually, I closed the first, and as I closed it as a consensus to keep (i.e. not delete) the categories. I said the Hare Krishna one could be deleted if it remained empty, because a focus of the discussion was that it would be a small category. It has not remained empty. Nothing's really changed since the last 2 CfDs on this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not a DrV, so I'll retract the no-consensus comment. There is no notice on the talk page about the second CfD. Sorry I wasn't clearer. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I think this category could contain other people too, for example Talk:Boy_George, Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami, and Hayagriva Swami. LGBT people played an important part in the Hare Krishna movement. It seems that some people, especially those in ISKCON, would probably like to sweep some of the history under the rug, but the evidence is clear. LGBT people played an important part in the development of the Hare Krishna movement in the Western world. Some LGBT Hare Krishnas had to leave ISKCON because of their sexuality, others either became celibate, chose to leave, were married by the Swami to members of the opposite sex, or were kicked out because of indiscretions related to their sexuality. Kirtanananda Swami and Hayagriva Swami were lovers for a number of years, then they joined the Hare Krishna movement in the late 1960s and Kirtanananda became "celibate" (though later was caught breaking his vows), and Hayagriva was married by Prabhupada to Shyama Dasi. The marriage lasted eleven years, and later he was married to Purnamasi Dasi. Nevertheless, the book Monkey On A Stick (by John Hubner and Lindsey Gruson, 1988 and 1990) suggests that Hayagriva was likely seeing men throughout those years too. Hayagriva died of cancer in 1989. Kirtanananda Swami, on the other hand, was supposed to be "celibate", but was eventually caught being intimate with a boy in 1993. This was the final incident that basically got Kirtanananda kicked out of New Vrindaban. Kirtanananda in recent years has basically fled the United States and now resides in India. Kirtanananda and Hayagriva were very important to the Hare Krishna movement in the United States from the 1960s onward, as was Allen Ginsberg. LGBT people contributed greatly to the Hare Krishna movement in the United States, and it's a shame that more of them can't be recognized for who they are, but I think eventually the truth will come out. Geneisner (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is confusing, as to be Hare krishna you can be ether celebate or straight. I agree that the above individuals contributed but they are ether not part of the movement (ie Boy) or have never ever identified or self identified as being gay. The only one, Ginsberg is hardly part of the movement, but as with many LGBT people can be a friend. The only reason to keep it is to show that there are none. Wikidās ॐ 17:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Can a "substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list)" be written for this intersection (LGBT people + Hare Krishnas)? If one cannot be written, then this category fails the criteria set forth in the guideline on categorisation by sexuality and should be deleted. It is not especially important (for the purposes of deciding whether to keep this category) whether there are or were LGBT Hare Krishnas (see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, #5) if that combination is not "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Concerning your question about a "substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list)," I have not come across enough information from reliable sources to form an article concerning the intersection (LGBT people + Hare Krishnas). Such an article is a not possible, presently, given the current published information, and would be Wikipedia:Original Research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply, I would say that the combination IS a distinct and unique culture topic in its own right, given the history of the Hare Krishna movement in North America and that three of the most prominent people in the early stages of the movement in New York City were homosexuals. To your second point, "Can a "substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list)" be written for this intersection (LGBT people + Hare Krishnas)?" I would certainly say so, and I'm working on writing one as we speak. I see no reason why this topic should not have its own page, for example, there are pages on Wikipedia such as LGBT issues and Hinduism as well as Homosexuality in India, so I see no reason why there couldn't be a page entitled LGBT issues and the Hare Krishna movement. Geneisner (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I will review this article. Thank you for your hard work. Ism schism (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're also suggesting that we do away with categories such as Category:LGBT Christians and Category:LGBT Jews as well? I disagree wholeheartedly. Geneisner (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what I have suggested above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Black Falcon and Ism Schism give good reasons. That someone thinks that the topic is somehow "valid" doesn't address the larger problem of no reliable sources for a main article on the topic. It's not that no such article could "ever" be written, of course; we just can't write one without sources, and no sources have been found. Maybe someone will write a well-researched book about the topic someday, providing a source we can work with. This CfD shouldn't be treated punitively just because of multiple nominations. It is not the fault of the nominator that the category's talk page did not annotate its previous CfD forays. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true at all, there now IS an article on this topic with reliable sources entitled LGBT issues and the Hare Krishna movement. Just as there is an article entitled LGBT issues and Hinduism. Geneisner (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that, as others note above, the persons categorized here or suggested for categorization here appear to be done so out of original research, since they either cannot be reliably sourced as actually being homosexual, or they can, but cannot be reliably sourced as being part of the Hare Krishna movement. I haven't read the new article yet, which was obviously just cobbled together as a defensive move against CfD, and I really don't care all that much, but I'd be highly surprised to not find similar problems in that article, and this XfD is about a category, containing what appear to be zero properly categorized entries, almost no entries at all, and is not about an article. All the article does is possibly (I remain skeptical) overcome one problem faced by this category, not all of them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC) PS: I see others have already found holes in the article (including the gaping one that there aren't, as I said, reliable sources for the intersection), and even labelled it a WP:POINT; I wasn't going to quite go that far, but why not. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and close. This is what, the fourth time or so that this has been brought up in how long? It seems that some people might be trying to suppress the truth here because of closed-minded bigotry. Isn't SMcCandlish the same guy who basically said that "gays don't have it so bad in India" in a previous discussion? If so, that shows how little that person really knows about homosexuality in India - it's still ILLEGAL in some parts of that country. Perhaps you should actually read some things on the topics before you just start arguing about them. You could start here Homosexuality in India, but there's plenty more out there. As for SatyrTN, it seems like he's been trying to shut down this category since day one. I think the Hare Krishna ISKCON followers mean well, but I wonder if there's not a conflict of interest in their case. I mean, I'm sure the Catholic Church doesn't want certain things being said about them that are said on Wikipedia. There's an article entitled Catholic sex abuse cases. A page shouldn't be deleted simply because it's not popular with everyone. I think we have seen enough evidence which shows that this category and topic are relevant enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Fartbucket (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fartbucket, please keep your comments on the content, and do not attack other editors. That is grounds for being blocked. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And shouldn't be using a username that serves no purpose but to be offensive, per WP:USERNAME. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that isn't what I said. Please read strawman, Fartbucket. What I said was that there is no evidence cited so far of a history of persecution of homosexuals in Hare Krishna. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comemnt I have reviewed the article, LGBT issues and the Hare Krishna movement. This is a well written, researched, article through the hard work of one editor. For sure, this article will help this discussion move forward quicker. Though, a few questions first.

1):Are their reliable sources for which the subject is the intersection (LGBT people + Hare Krishnas)?

2):What is the potential for this article to be further developed to assure it is beyond Wikipedia:Original Research?

3):Aside from the article there is still Wikidas' question/variable concerning identity. Above Wikidas stated, "as to be Hare krishna you can be ether celebate or straight. I agree that the above individuals contributed but they are ether not part of the movement (ie Boy) or have never ever identified or self identified as being gay. The only one, Ginsberg is hardly part of the movement..."

These are very important concerns that need to be addressed here in this discussion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of keeping the article, but only if the articles subject was a subject of research and work of independent reliable sources. At the moment it just does not justify the intersection as there are no third party academic sources or any other reliable sources as to the intersection. If there are any academic sources for this, just as there are for the same in LGBT other sects, good. At the moment the article was under WP:POINT. Wikidās ॐ 09:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are three concerns listed above. I believe that these issues need to be addressed individually. I will wait for a response. If there is no response, I will expound upon each concern as to its relevance for not keeping this category. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Directors who committed suicide[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Directors who committed suicide to Category:Film directors who committed suicide
Nominator's rationale: Director is ambigious, and to match main article. Lugnuts (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - let's beat the rush of suicidal bank directors. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People dying on their birthday[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People dying on their birthday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by trivia. Eliyak T·C 06:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAT. Lugnuts (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both - only 1 member! Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It I created it because it is statistically interesting User:Walter Day —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom: "overcategorization by trivia"; while perhaps interesting, there is nothing statistically significant about this. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think it's convinient though.--Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a valid defining characteristic. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_21&oldid=1074801470"