Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 2 June 4 >

June 3[edit]

Category:Nettwerk albums[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: merge. Kbdank71 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Nettwerk albums to Category:Nettwerk Records albums
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. Convention in this section is for the form XXX Records albums to be used, so keep that one as the category name. thisisace (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as duplicates.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically the merge-out candidate already existed and the target candidate is the newer duplicate, but I agree that the target candidate should be the naming convention nevertheless. Merge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2009 (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:Quakers and Russia[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. Kbdank71 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Quakers and Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Created 2 months ago. It's really not clear what this category is for ! thisisace (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created this category having communicated with a member of Moscow Quaker Meeting, who is adding material to Russian WP. I have been reading Richenda Scott's Quakers in Russia(1964) and hope to add much more material, linked by this category, which could be useful for the Russian WP. Vernon White . . . Talk 08:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete together with all other categories of the type "The pope and Belgium", "The pope and France", etc. Also doubtfull how many notable articles will populate such a category. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simple. There should be one Quakers in Russia. Unfortunately, quakers preach in private, have no formal establishment, don't make the news... very few independent RS on present-day activities. I've checked the articles currently in the category - no good. Henry Pease (MP), Robert Charleton (minister) and Edmund Wright Brooks have been in Russia once, on humanitarian, not religious missions. Following this logic, any traveler will be listed in scores of "Been there" categories. Articles on Ruth Fry, Alfred Fox and James Finlayson have no mention of ever being in Russia whatsover. De-categorize these, and the category is empty; delete. NVO (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2009 (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:United States Republicans who were raised as Democrats[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. Kbdank71 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:United States Republicans who were raised as Democrats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Essentially a "party-switcher" category of the type that has been deleted before. I've one question though: American parents actually "raise" their children to be of a particular political party? ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- yes, there are parents that raise children in politics, just as in religion. (For example, Cokie Roberts.) I'm the "descendent" of Republicans; some of my great great grandparents were founders of the US Republican Party — it was founded here in Michigan. Of course, they were also abolitionists, conservationists, and GooGoo (Good Government) do-gooders. Although my parents may be too old to change their voting habits, the parties have realigned and left them behind. The only reason the rampant ethno-religious categorizers haven't been as successful with politics is these categories have been deleted more quickly. If they get a toehold, you'll see much more.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - BLP and verifiability issues, but moreover a poor categorization scheme. TheGrappler (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for various reasons. One of them them notability of such an intersection. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2009 (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:William Jefferson[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 for now. Renaming to "scandals" would remove most of the article, as is noted, these are people, not scandals. For the remainder of the articles that actually may belong, this is all alleged. Once the trial is over, there may be a salvageable category (with a different name), but right now, no. Kbdank71 13:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:William Jefferson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - not a very notable case (WP:COP) and the tenuous association is a non-defining characteristic for the articles put in the category (WP:OC#OPINION). Hekerui (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The situation surrounding William J. Jefferson is too much of a live wire, his trial finally beginning on June 9. Hekerui is no doubt an intelligent person, but the argument "not a very notable case" is seriously uninformed, involving, as the case has, not only a former vice president of Nigeria but also moves and countermoves by the FBI, Dennis Hastert, Nancy Pelosi, the Congressional Black Caucus, etc., before you get to the way the story has dominated the news around New Orleans. Jefferson has been out of Congress since January, but last month (May) his Wikipedia article still attracted 4907 hits (user:Henrik's counter) - even more than the article on the current incumbent, Joseph Cao. Rammer (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good to me. - Perhaps rename it "William J. Jefferson scandals" (inserting the middle initial) because the article on him includes the middle initial: William J. Jefferson. There are many Bill Jeffersons, but just one "Dollar Bill" Jefferson. Rammer (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename Category:William J. Jefferson scandals to fit logical parent, title of parent article and to more clearly reflect the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: misunderstanding of purpose of categories is evident. None of the articles included are scandals. The Congressional Black Caucus, Nancy Pelosi, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit are not scandals. Nor are Bobby Jindal, Louisiana's 2nd congressional district, and Marc Morial. If this is renamed to the suggested name, none of the articles would properly belong in it. So rename it is you wish, but I imagine the articles will be removed, leaving the category empty. Better to just delete, because none of the articles now included belong in it. A bunch of articles linked to in the William J. Jefferson article were grouped together in this category to relate them all back to the article. That's not how categories work. That's why we have wikilinks in articles and a "what links here" function. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complete hodge-podge of articles with nothing approaching a unifying theme and no articles for which "William Jefferson" is a defining characteristic. Jefferson isn't even mentioned in several of the articles, much less Jefferson's being any sort of focus within them. Otto4711 (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Good Ol'factory and Otto4711. None of these articles should be categorized in this manner, by something to which they are important rather than vice versa. Postdlf (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Otto4711 and Good Ol'factory mention, the category is a catch all for "People and things with some sort of conection to William J. Jefferson", some of the connections being strong & important and others being vague, distant, or minor. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a complicated situation with links to many people in the New Orleans area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.65.44 (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC) — 69.2.65.44 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Which is an outstanding reason why a category does such a poor job in organizing these articles. A category can't explain how these people are "linked" either to Jefferson in general or to his legal case in specific. Otto4711 (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does a bare alphabetical list of names keep the "spiderweb" straight? There probably should be an article on the criminal case (rather than the fragmented presentation across multiple articles on people whose articles should be deleted per WP:BLP1E). The suggested title "Jefferson Crime Family" indicates a high level of non-neutrality on this subject matter. There really is no comparison to Category:George W. Bush as a simple glance at Bush's category confirms. This category is straining to find articles and thus includes articles on everything from Hurricane Katrina (imagine the clutter if Katrina got a category for every politician associated with it) to journalists whose only connection to Jefferson is that they liked making fun of him in print. In looking at the articles, many of them - of questionable notability - were created and categorized by a single editor, and I have to question whether the articles were written as part of an anti-Jefferson agenda. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No anti-Jefferson agenda, any more than Otto4711 has a pro-Jefferson agenda. I’ve met former congressman Jefferson and his wife a number of times and find them to be likeable people. Whether the feds have a case which will bring about convictions remains to be seen. In the meantime the news around New Orleans is abuzz with all the allegations. Wikipedia is not a pot-stirrer, but rather it has an obligation to report that the pot has been stirred. Again, I humbly suspect that there should be one article on the Virginia trial of William J. Jefferson and an article on the Louisiana trials of the relatives. The category should be renamed and made to include entries which are inextricable from the judicial proceedings, although maybe a better way to track the "spiderweb" is to use links within the articles on the trials and perhaps a list. Besides “Go” Wikipedia also has a “Search” button which will expose every mention of William J. Jefferson in all Wikipedia articles. Rammer (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has no obligation to "report that the pot has been stirred" because Wikipedia is not a news outlet. "Newsworthy" does not equal notable and people who are known for their involvement in a single event do not automatically qualify for Wikipedia articles. While I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm as an editor, I have to suggest that your time and the project would be better served if you concentrated on writing a single sourced article on the Jefferson case instead of scores of fragmentary articles on isolated aspects of it. Otto4711 (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're veering off the topic at hand, which is whether to delete this category. But I agree with you (and have said as much) about the desirability of consolidating the legal proceedings involving the Jeffersons into another article or articles. As for my attention to "scores of fragmentary articles," my motivation had to do with getting the encyclopedia ready for hundreds of users who will hit Wikipedia (some probably for the first time) as the trials unfold. In a few cases that motive has meant composing new articles; in others it has meant merely providing targets for previously red links. It seems that if I take out the brackets which cause the redness, I get slapped for removing a reminder that an article needs to be written; if I remove the redness by writing an article, I get slapped for writing a "fragmentary" article. Finally, if newsworthiness does not equal "people who are known for their involvement in a single event," Wikipedia should eliminate articles on people like Lee Harvey Oswald. Rammer (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comparison to Oswald is completely specious, as WP:BIO1E clearly states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." and goes on to mention "the assassins of major political leaders" as the sort of person who would qualify for a separate article. No one here has "slapped" you for writing fragmentary articles. I have simply suggested that you make yourself more familiar with the circumstances under which a separate article should or shouldn't be written, including reviewing WP:N, WP:NOT and WP:RS. If someone has "slapped" you for removing redlinks for people who are not and quite possibly will not be notable, then they are in error. Otto4711 (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of this is at present 'alleged' and we generally delete such categories. After the trial I expect there would be justification for some sort of category for those found guilty, and executed in effigy, or whatever. (I am confident Hurricane Katrina will be exonerated.) Occuli (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2009 (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:Serbs[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: Withdrawn, following emerging standard. Category descriptions and parents must carefully document the proper use of these categories.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Serbs to Category:Serbian people
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Newer creation should be {{category redirect}}ed to Wikipedia standard naming. Match Croats, and Bosniaks (below).
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the two categories appear to be organizing different aspects of the community as a whole vs. individuals. Alansohn (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nom. The community as a whole and individuals should be housed on the same cat page (which contradicts the apparent prevailing view on this, I know.) Mayumashu (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2009 (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:Canadien graffiti artists[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. Kbdank71 13:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canadien graffiti artists to Category:Canadian graffiti artists
Nominator's rationale: typo: Canadien --> Canadian OlEnglish (Talk) 20:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename — no-brainer.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and rename - you sure that's a typo? Isn't Canadien another name for "French Canadian"? Mind you, if it is, it seems an unnecessary OCAT given we don't even have Canadian graffiti artists, so a rename to include all the country's graffiterati would make sense. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, the one artist categorised doesn't seem to be French Canadian. Grutness...wha? 02:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Indeed, Canadien refers to French Canadians. Putting that aside, there is only one article in the category—not enough to warrant its existence. I say delete, or at best, rename to Category:Canadian graffiti artists if kept. — Σxplicit 05:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other notable ones, from Toronto, I'm sure of it. Their articles have yet to be written. -- Ϫ 14:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does a straightforward spelling error even really need to come to CFD for a full week of debate rather than to CFR-speedy? Regardless, rename per nom. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was 100% certain that it was a spelling mistake, no - but as I pointed out above, this may not have been a mistake. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 10 June 2009 (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:Bosniaks[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bosniaks to Category:Bosniak people
Nominator's rationale: Proper title per Category:People by nationality. PRODUCER (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense and doesn't follow any standard. PRODUCER (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed that link to Category:People by race or ethnicity Mayumashu (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while you are busy categorizing all the former inhabitants of Yugoslavia by ethnicity, recall that by Yugoslavia's 1981 census, a full 5% of the population self-identified as "Yugoslavs" ethnically. Be sure to categorize them too - while I contend that notions of ethnicity change, some around here don't so pray tell what happened to those Yugoslavs? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5% is not exactly a huge figure! Presumably many were mixed Serb and Croat etc. I suppose we have to look at later censuses. Johnbod (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If 5% is so insignificant, are you ready to drop all the "Fooian descent" categories where Fooians are less than 5% of the the country's population? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No of course not - and this is not a "descent" category. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does one become Bosniak other than by descent? I assume one can become Bosnian by naturalization, but ethnicity requires "descent". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whats with the double standard? Categories Category:Croatian people and Category:Serbian people do not match their parent article PRODUCER (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bosniak persons has also some percentage of non-slav ancestry (turkish invaders). --Opus88888 (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom, for consistency. For category pages, 'Fooian people' has become the prevalent naming pattern Mayumashu (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- emerging standard -- Fooian people are per country. Bosnia is not its own country. Therefore, and in concert with other nominations, Fooians plural are used for ethnic categories for people.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2009 (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:Heritage[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. Kbdank71 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Heritage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category appears to be very general. From the talk page, it looks like it may have been previously deleted ! thisisace (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - only 2 very specific articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also we have a good category structure to deal more specifically with the various areas involved eg industrial archaeology. This is too general. thisisace (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the time being but I don't think the category name is inherently bad - I just can't see its current usage as being particularly functional, due to redundancy issues (as per ThisIsAce just above). However I could imagine this becoming a well-populated and well-structured category. It could be used to bring together articles on areas such as heritage education, heritage preservation movements, organisations and policies, and for some countries, any articles created to cover the guaranteed constitutional or other legal protection of cultural heritage (particularly of minorities in post-conflict societies) - I'm currently unaware of any articles in the latter mold but it is likely that they will be created at some point, given political and scholarly interest in the topic. So a contingent delete in current form, without any prejudice to recreation. TheGrappler (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; deletion of a category with two unrelated entries and unknown purpose won't hurt anyone. NVO (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2009 (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:Rationality theorists[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Rationality theorists to Category:Rationalists
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Are these categories essentially the same ? (Not my area of expertise !) thisisace (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I am no expert, my readings of the works of the individuals included in each category leads me to the rational conclusion that these are different fields. Alansohn (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2009 (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:Wikipedia deletion[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia deletion to Category:Wikipedia deletion discussion (singular)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match its list article Wikipedia:Deletion discussions (plural). Distinguish from its more recent subcategory Category:Wikipedia deletion policy.
Although it's not obvious from the name, this includes merging and renaming, too. Should a more cumbersome name be adopted for the literalistas among us? (That hasn't happened for AfD or TfD.)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Of the 28 subcategories only 2 don't include the word (un-)deletion. Debresser (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your count is incorrect and irrelevant. The proposed name also has the word "deletion" in it. The only question is: should the name reflect the wider universe of possibilities? A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now agree My count was correct until you started moving categories. And the proposed name now includes "deletion" since you changed your proposal. Debresser (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me remind you. Remember receiving a warning for incivility? For certain edit summaries (amongst other things)? Well, those were the ones. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truly, my edit summaries were correct.
  1. I remember a warning notice that was posted after "spurious sock-infested nonsense" that you initiated.
  2. I remember that the notice was contrary to established practice, and "borders on incivility itself".
  3. I remember that this renaming discussion is taking place because you removed categories "Categories for discussion", and "User categories for discussion" from "Wikipedia deletion" (discussed here) and "Pages for deletion" (discussed previously)! Several times. With edit summaries such as (obvious mistake in tree). After I reverted: (Undid ... random additions).
  • Cease fabricating frivolous flummery, in the old section, and bring useful comments to the new section!
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impartial This whole part of the category tree is an ungodly mess. Neither a "keep" nor a "rename" will change that mess. I'd be happy to work with William Allen Simpson on making some order in this chaos. For the current nomination this argument implies I couldn't care less, because as soon as this discussion will be closed, there's going to have to be a major overhaul of this whole area of Wikipedia categories. Debresser (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2009 (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:Entities involved in United States housing bubble[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. Kbdank71 14:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Entities involved in United States housing bubble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discuss/Delete? In recent months I have closed as "delete" three discussions for categories that are kind of related to this one. I'm not strongly advocating deletion here, but I'd be interested in opening up a discussion to determine if this one should be deleted too or if it's somehow different. The discussions for the three similar categories are below.
  • Comment I just love these generalisations: "entities", "involved". If there are not enough articles to justify making more specific categories, still no reason to make these monster categories with a double generalisation. I suppose that would count as a delete. Debresser (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tend to agree. They seem rather general.
I especially like UK_Retailers_that_went_bust_after_the_financial_crisis_of_2007-8 Isn't that from 2007 until forever ? ;-) thisisace (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2009 (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:"City/Town topics" templates[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. Kbdank71 14:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:"City/Town topics" templates to Category:City and town topics templates
Propose renaming Category:"Country/Territory topics" templates to Category:Country and territory topics templates
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia naming conventions generally discourage the use of quotation marks and slashes (which denote subpages) in page titles. I believe that the proposed alternatives are more intuitive for searching and better match established guidelines. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 07:07, 3 June 2009 (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:Roller coaster images[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. Kbdank71 14:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Roller coaster images to Category:Images of roller coasters
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match convention in the parent, Category:Images of buildings and structures. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2009 (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:Hospitals affected by the 2003 SARS outbreak[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. Kbdank71 14:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hospitals affected by the 2003 SARS outbreak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not convinced that this is defining for a hospital. What is left, are articles that at least mention SARS. The other hospitals that were included did not even mention SARS. North York General Hospital is one example in this category and it had SARS cases. Why exactly is this defining for that hospital? Maybe a listify instead of an outright delete if we need to have thus information. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not remotely a defining characteristic of a hospital, and terribly vague. A facility that, for example, transferred supplies to another facility to treat SARS patients has been "affected" by SARS even if they never directly treated a SARS patient. Categorizing facilities that are not dedicated to a specific disease by any disease is overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reasons as above. thisisace (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - well explained nom; although not averse to listification if the information within is deemed important enough. TheGrappler (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Bulldog123 03:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2009 (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:Districts in Scotland[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: no consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Districts in Scotland to Category:Neighbourhoods in Scotland
Nominator's rationale: There is already another category Category:Districts of Scotland, which has a specific historical meaning. This category would be better with the new title, as specified in the category page. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that many boroughs, including my own, do chose to divide their area for many official purposes into "neighbourhoods", and this category is not (in general anyway) about those divisions. The article has been corrected. NB this useful council page, with a query function for those who don't know what neighbourhood they live in, which I expect is most of us. [3]. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The base bureaucratic unit here in Scotland is "community" as in "community council" etc. And in terms of actual usage in everyday life, I'm involved in a local campaign just now and we're leafletting houses throughout the town. It's a question what "areas" have been done yet, or who is doing which "district"; I havent heard anyone mention "neighbourhoods". AllyD (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2009 (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:International Banks[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 both, overcategorisation / arbitrary inclusion criteria. BencherliteTalk 10:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:International Banks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Pan African banks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Like all categories for "organizations by country", banks in Category:Banks by country are assigned a country based on where the headquarters for the bank is located. If a bank is located in New York but has a branch in Canada, it should be in Category:Banks of the United States but not in Category:Banks of Canada. Thus, categorizing banks that have a presence in more than one country is not something WP does under the current scheme, but I suggest that an attempt to do so with these categories would be overcategorization. There's nothing particularly defining about a bank that acts in more than one country—in fact, it is fairly common and even to be expected in these days of globalization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Can't put my finger on it, but the location argument is out of place here. Would be easier if this category could be connected to some organization coordinating activities of national banks. That could be a way out, by renaming to "National banks members of ..." Debresser (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Intnl per nom, Keep Africa until better arguments produced. There are many fewer banks in Africa. However we should try to find a clear standard for this. Having a local subsidiary is a start, but many are regional in Africa rather than actually "Pan-African" - which I doubt any literally are. Johnbod (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should the number of banks in an area be the deciding factor in deciding one should go but the other should be kept? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because International banks could include the vast majority of them ! thisisace (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Banks in the world clearly. several hundred must meet even the definition below. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that still doesn't explain why the international one should be deleted but not the Pan African one. Number of articles that qualify—apart from the single-member category issue—has never been a standard to judge appropriateness of categories by. Or are you drawing the distinction based on international = 2+ countries; Pan African=5+ countries (or whatever number), and thus the PA should be kept b/c the higher standard makes it more defining? I'm just trying to figure out what you're meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both:
    International Bank is a bank with active bank subsidiaries on at least three continents regardless of where its headquarters are located.
    Africa is divided into five (5) major sub regions (i.e Northern Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, Eastern Africa, and Southern Africa). A Pan African bank is one with active subsidiaries in at least five African countries, spanning at least three of the five sub regions, regardless of where the headquarters of the bank are located. As such Barclays Bank headquartered in London, the United Kingdom is a Pan African bank, because it is located in about twenty (20) African countries scattered in all five African sub regions. On the other hand, First National Bank (South Africa) is not yet a Pan African bank despite being present in South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Swaziland and Zambia, all located in the Southern African sub region. Fsmatovu (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you reference these definitions of the terms? Are there main articles? Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If not, seems like an arbitrary criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2009 (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:American politicians who support same-sex marriage[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 (thanks to bearcat for the laugh). Kbdank71 14:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American politicians who support same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:America supporters of same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Classic overcategorization of people by opinion or political position. Hundreds of comparable categories for various issues could be created, which could lead to enormous category clutter. (Parenthetically, another problem is that most people have more nuanced views than just adopting one of a binary choice of being "pro" or "anti" something. Someone who "supports" same-sex marriage could mean, at one extreme, that they think there should be a federal constitutional amendment legalizing it, but at the other extreme it could also mean that they do not favor its legalization but that they otherwise "support" couples who have already entered into gay marriages in places where it is legal, like Massachusetts or Canada.) Note that the following categories have previously been deleted: Same-sex marriage supporters; Anti-gay marriage politicians; and many others that categorize people in general or politicians specifically by various opinions or political position, including abortion, guns, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this product of overly zealous people trying to push anything LGBT connected. Debresser (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – every politician has positions on hundreds of issues. Making categories for each of them would be a never-ending nightmare. — Lincolnite (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overcategorization and problem of classification. Hekerui (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above. And I'm a LGBT connected person ! thisisace (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV would demand Category:LGBT disconnected people for balance... Bearcat (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as noted, OC by opinion or issue, and the question is far too nuanced to lend itself to binary categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Otto4711 has the best rationale. TheGrappler (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto4711, well put. -- Banjeboi 18:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people by opinion is a bad idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yep, it's way too hard to organize such categories and keep 'em stable, and of course this qualifies as overcategorization. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OCAT by opinion. List if necessary, though not necessarily a list. Bearcat (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2009 (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:Black rock musicians[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. From Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Race: "Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic." Consensus has pretty consistently held that the amount of pigment in a rock musician's skin does not constitute a defining characteristic for the purposes of categorization. This is a separate consideration from ethnicity, which may in some cases be defining.--Aervanath (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Black rock musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is mistitled and is delete-able based on precedent from categories about "white rappers" and black people in general. Besides, rock musicians of African American descent (think Chuck Berry or Lenny Kravitz) can be categorized in various categories in Category:African American musicians. If need be we can create new categories like "African American rock musicians" and other ones for their Black Canadian and Black British counterparts. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term "African American musicians" obviously excludes non-American black performers, and does not denote that they are specifically rock musicians. The category was created specifically for people like Chuck Berry, Jimi Hendrix, and Lenny Kravitz, who form a notable minority of rock musicians. In contrast, white (or non-black) rappers are not exactly a "minority" of rappers, so that argument does not really apply to this case. An argument can also be made for having other categories like Black country and western musicians for the same reasons. — Loadmaster (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if that were to happen are we gonna hold all people categories to the same standard and reinstate "black people" category, which was previously deleted? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is their being black relevant to categorisation ? thisisace (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wouldn't this be too broad considering the huge amount of rock subgenres? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Black rock musicians". LEAVE THE CATEGORY ALONE!!! WHEN THEY SAY "BLACK ROCK MUSICIANS", THEY MEAN IN GENERAL: AMERICAN, CANADIAN, EUROPEAN, ETC.!!! DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT CREATING NEW SEPARATE CATEGORIES!!! "BLACK ROCK MUSICIANS" IS A PERFECT CATEGORY!!! PLEASE DO NOT DELETE IT!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.228.214 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)— 68.238.228.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You know, posts like that make people much less likely to even consider taking you seriously. When I look at that all I see "I'M LOUD-MOUTH LITTLE KID! PLEASE BLOCK ME!" and nothing else. So you may as well not even bother. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Definitely keep, this cfd can't be serious. Category:Black rock musicians is part of the afropunk & black rock coalition movemet. There was also a big debate when this catagorey was started Black rock musicians vs African American rock musicians, it was agreed to change it to Black rock musicians due to many thinking the term AA is insulting and there are many black people that are not AA. The fact that there are not many notable black rock musicians it as there are black musicians, etc so that argument makes little sense. It is a big movement (afropuk & black rock coalition) it would be an insult for it not to get recognition of its own. There was also a page of Black rock musicians, but it was decided to be moved to category. You cannot bring up previous cfd per wiki deletion debate standards. Sure rock musicians of black-African descent (i.e Chuck Berry or Lenny Kravitz) can be categorized in various categories in Category:African American musicians but the whole point of this cat its part of the afropunk community & activism.--Sugarcubez (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comparable previous categories' rationale. Hekerui (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cannot compare other categories to this one, being that there are completely different.--Sugarcubez (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's quite clear that we do not categorize by skin color. African-American categories are sometimes OK; "black", "white", or "people of color" categories—never. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but many black people I know considered the term "black" as referring more to their ethnic origins (i.e., African ancestry) than to their genetics. The problem is that, while a term like "African American" is technically more correct in this regard, it is limited to Americans. Splitting this reasonably-sized category into many subcategories (some of which would contain only a few articles) seems like PC overkill. It should also be mentioned that there have been no posted objections to the category. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact is, we don't generally categorize people by intersection of ethnicity and occupation. Nationality, yes; ethnicity, no. As for their being "no posted objections"—a nomination for deletion can be considered a "posted objection", as can a !vote in favor of deletion. I object to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do allow ethnic intersections when there's something uniquely notable about that intersection, though — although there'd probably be some dispute over the title you could very easily write a substantial and well-referenced head article on the phenomenon of black rock musicians. Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black is more dealing with ethnicity & race not skin color without being specific here.--Sugarcubez (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that the existing category was split into nationality categories (African-American rock musicians, Black British rock musicians, etc.), these catgegories would logically be subcategories of a single supercategory, namely Black rock muscians. So there would be little point in splitting it. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would totally obliterate the fact that these people are notable because of their relative scarcity within the entire genre of rock musicians. It's fine if you don't think that these performers are especially notable because of their rarity, but some of us think it indicates the inroads they have made into an otherwise white-dominated artistic genre, and that this is an important thing, enough to warrant its on category in WP. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not obliterate anything, and categories have nothing to do with notability. Categories are just categories. Not having a category for a specific topic doesn't prevent the information from being retained in WP in article or list format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, but then the problem becomes one of having multiple ethnicity + music style categories; what would the supercategory for these be? — Loadmaster (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm arguing against the retention of such categories, I don't see a need to assign a parent to such categories, because the categories wouldn't exist! If you're asking what categories the articles could go in—there are categories for ethnicities and there are categories for musicians of certain musical styles by nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Good Ol Bulldog123 03:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is relevant, and should cover ALL black musicians involved in rock (no matter what their nationality is), as they are a very obvious and notable minority in the genre and the article is needed to list them and address their involvement in rock. Citing category issues does not seem to be a legitimate reason to delete the article entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTrevelyan402 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep I agree. This category should be kept because it does cover black musicians of ALL nationalities. Therefore, there's no point in deleting this category for any reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.106.141 (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC) — 71.126.106.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete unnecessary (and this time vague) race/ethnic criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, seems rather rude. If you read the above keep comments & learn more about the topic & category you would see that it (the category) is very necessary & not at all vague.--Sugarcubez (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rude? You're in favor of segregating people by their race or skin color. These categories, as I've said numerous times, are neither necessary and usually purely subjective. "Black" as an adjective has been applied to Africans, and people with some African blood outside of Africa (often, depending on their skin color, especially in places like Brazil), and to people of the Indian sub-continent, and the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia, native Melanesians, and anyone else that didn't look "white enough" to the usually racist observer. Why perpetuate these? Again, no objective criteria for inclusion (is it purely subjective self-identification? or the one drop rule? or something based on some % of blood that is not arbitrary? or on skin color using objective measurements? all of which suck, basically why this category sucks). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Suggestion Since most of the reasons for deletion is the use of black people instead of separating each & every black person in even more of minority with the rock music; I propose we change the category name to afropunk musicians or artists. That way this very important category that goes with the afropunk & black rock coalition movement can still go on for great reference as well as activism.--Sugarcubez (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep Bad idea. We should just leave the category as it is and move on. Changing it or deleting it is pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.102.57 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC) — 71.126.102.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Reminder to everyone: Please type ~~~~ at the end of your comment, to add your username. That way we can see the number of different people taking part in the discussion. thisisace (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on SPAs. I'm having a hard time believing that 71.126.106.141 and 71.126.102.57 and 68.238.228.214 are different users, and yet all 3 IPs have lodged a "keep" vote above. All 3 IPs are from a Verizon line in Reston, VA. I suggest those votes be discounted here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignoring all three comments is inherently unfair; better to treat them as coming from one person. Besides, this is a discussion, not a vote. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also inherently unfair to attempt to "vote-stack", which is what could be going on here. They may be considered as one, but that one opinion will be of such diminished credibility because of the vote-stacking that they may as well be ignored. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have different ips how can they be the same, that is ridiculous you need more proof if we choose to discount them.--Sugarcubez (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not heard of dynamic IP address ranges? The chances that all three are different people are exceedingly low—the probability that three different people, all in Reston, VA, just happened to all vote anonymously for keep in this particular CfD without logging in within a few hours of each other is miniscule. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah good ole Virginia, capital of the confederacy, bastion of racism: Racial Integrity Act of 1924, and their judge's memorable lines defending it: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." - which the US Supreme Court was called up to reverse. Certainly in character for some anon from Virginia to weigh in repeatedly in favor of segregation. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Sad really. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only do we categorize on skin color (you may want to look through the archives regarding African American sportspeople), but this category is intended to capture a strong defining characteristic in which race does play a major role. Alansohn (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • African American is not a skin color. It is an ethnic background combined with a nationality, essentially a "sub-type" within "Americans". Classifying someone as "black" includes no inherent limitation by nationality, as does AA. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the genuine issue here is "Black" versus "African American", we are categorizing by skin color, just using a different euphemism du jour. If your real problem is the the wording, why delete and not try to fix a problem every now an then without tossing categories in the garbage? Alansohn (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The category is not being used to categorize solely African Americans. There are a number of non-American black people in the category. It's a completely separate issue—an AA category could be considered completely independently on its merits. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Rock musicians and Category:Black people. I don't think being black has anything to do with being a musician, so no need to keep it together, but if we're going to categorize by skin color (and we obviously do, look at all the keeps at CFD and overturns at DRV for race-based categories), lets not half-ass it. There is no better way to capture the "strong defining characteristic" in which race plays a major role by capturing race in its own category. Of course, for NPOV we need Category:White people. --Kbdank71 14:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because Wikipedia does NOT categorize by skin color (see original CFD's: white people and black people, both in 2006). Skin color and ethnicity are two different things. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I know that, but when we have so many people here wanting to keep this and for that matter, Cat:Black people anything, then yes, we sure do. Of course, it doesn't help when there are a lot of vocal people who incorrectly think black and african-american mean the same thing. --Kbdank71 13:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless someone can find a better term than "Black people" for people having an African heritage (not just African Americans), we should accept that "Black" is different from "black", the former designating ethnicity and/or cultural roots and the latter designating a color. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not categorize people by ethnicity or skin color, and this category does just that. All categories like these have been deleted in the past and this category is no different. — Σxplicit 20:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Suggestion. Again as I stated above but no one commented back on: Since most of the reasons for deletion is the use of black people instead of separating each & every black person in even more of minority with the rock music; I propose we change the category name to afropunk musicians or artists. That way this very important category that goes with the afropunk & black rock coalition movement can still go on for great reference as well as activism. As well black is more of a race/ethnicity than skin color. AA is just used here in America obviously, most other countries it is Black since it most acceptable not African Canadian etc. (e.g. Categories are Category:Black Canadians, Category:Black Jews, Category:Black British people, etc.) There is also many categories such as Category:Black sitcoms. Based on what I stated there is no reason for deletion.--Sugarcubez (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that we should keep the category, but renaming it may be the compromise solution. However, the term "Afropunk" fails to capture the meaning of the broader group of "Rock musicians", since "punk" is a specific subgenre of "rock". I don't know of a better single term to use than "Black", as you point out, which appears to be more widely accepted. And as your examples show, we do indeed categorize by ethnicity/culture, so splitting this category into nationality-specific subcats (e.g., Category:African American rock musicians, Category:Black British rock musicians) seems like administrative overkill. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2009 (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.

Accused Soviet spies[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 "accused of" is a blp issue. Kbdank71 14:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Accused Soviet spies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Italians accused of spying for the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadians accused of spying for the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:British people accused of spying for the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Per the outcome of this discussion. Deletion reasons include: 1) possible WP:BLP issues; 2) "Accused" is the equivalent of "alleged" and categories based on allegations are strongly disfavored. While the categories contain a description saying that inclusion is not a confirmation of guilt, the placement of these categories in various "Spies" parent categories strongly belies that. 3) Each accusation of spying needs annotation, something that can't be done through the category system. Otto4711 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Otto4711 says, the context of the accusations is impossible to convey in a category. Some accusations were based on strong evidence that was impossible to prosecute, due to escapes, death, or overriding security issues. Other accusations are based on much less evidence, such as being mentioned in a secret telegram. While the articles themselves should contain this information, it is to much of a gray-area for categorization. A list would probalb y be OK too as it could explain the evidence against each party.   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Huge WP:BLP violation. — Σxplicit 02:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_27#Category:Guantanamo_Bay_captives_alleged_to_have_returned_to_the_fight for another "alleged" category which is about to get deleted. Debresser (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. thisisace (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All The spying for the Sovit Union -- alleged or otherewise -- is a defining characteristic, if not one of the most defining characteristics, for the individuals included. The lead paragraphs of almost all the articles included here specifically define the individuals based on their spying for the Soviet Union. Anthony Blunt is described as "a British spy" who was "recruited in 1934 by the NKVD... was instrumental in recruiting Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean... [and] passed on ULTRA intelligence from decrypted Enigma intercepts to the Soviet Union", John Cairncross as "a British intelligence officer during World War II who passed secrets to the Soviet Union during the war" and Klaus Fuchs as a "British theoretical physicist and atomic spy who in 1950 was convicted of supplying information from the British and American atomic bomb research to the USSR during and shortly after World War II." As usual, any potential borderline cases should be addressed at the article level without needlessly deleting the categories involved, and any BLP "allegations" should be dealt with by expunging the details of spying from the articles themselves. Deletion of this category structure needlessly robs Wikipedia readers of a way to effectively navigate across a group of articles undoubtedly united by a single defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blunt and Cairncross are both in Category:Soviet spies so the deletion of this category tree would not remove them from the overall structure. Fuchs was actually convicted and is currently in Category:Convicted Soviet spies and so, again, would not be lost to the tree with the deletion of this structure. Otto4711 (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2009 (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.

Sexual conflict[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. Kbdank71 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sexual conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

the category exist since 2007 and only one article in category. The category isn't necessary. Delete GLGermann (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteI see 2 articles. No reason for a category, since I don't see much room for growth either. And in view of the content of the 2 existing articles, I think that is for the best. Debresser (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have removed the only article from this category and linked to the article in the See also section of Sexual Conflict. thisisace (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this one is going down but please don't remove articles, unless uncontroversially misplaced, while discussion continues - see the procedures on the main Cfd page. No-one else is likely to comment now, except to complain about this. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Didn't want to leave them uncategorised when the category was deleted ! thisisace (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. The editors doing the actual work take excellent care of this kind of thing. I hope. :) Debresser (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2009 (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/2009_June_3&oldid=1138392618"