Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 16

< September 15	September 17 >

September 16[edit]

Category:Former world record holders[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: keep all. — ξ ^xplicit 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Nominator's rationale: Delete - long-standing consensus is that we don't categorize people based on their former status, once a Foo always a Foo. But it's easier to get confused over who the current world record holder in a particular sporting event is than it is to get confused over who's currently the President of the United States. Although per WP:CLN lists and categories are not mutually exclusive I think it would be more beneficial to readers to have lists of former world records by event. Such lists could include name, country, the record mark, when it was set and when it was surpassed and by whom. Much more informative than a bare category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAz GaA 15:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. Categorizing record holders is really a tricky thing to try to do, and it never really works that well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree that categorizing by what they were formerly is overcategorization.--TM 05:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists are useful but so are categories. Breaking a world record is comparable to winning an Olympic medal and there are categories for that. Possibly there should be just one category for each sport of world record holders, both current and former, but that is a separate issue. For sporting records, the world record holders are clearly defined by the relevant sporting body so there is no problem over categorising. For non-sporting records, they appear to be limited to those recognised by the Guinness Book of Records, which seems reasonable. Cjc13 (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cjc13 and being labeled as a "former world record holder" can be defining. Lugnuts (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cjc13Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cjc13. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:53, 1 October 2010 (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:Bailey Island[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 to Category:Bailey Island (Maine). — ξ ^xplicit 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bailey Island to Category:Harpswell, Maine

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Bailey Island is ambiguous, but the Bailey Island in question is part of the town of Harpswell, Maine. I'm also not opposed to deletion or at least renaming it Category:Bailey Island (Maine) TM 22:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - small category with little or no growth potential. Contents are the article on the island and a bridge along with three people who resided psrt-time on the island (who probably shouldn't be in there). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAz GaA 15:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that a larger Harpswell article could be viable (around 10 articles).--TM 01:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:: You can create that category now without waiting for the outcome here. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)~~ Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAz GaA 15:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I thought I'd see what the consensus was first, which is why I nominated it in the first place.--TM 02:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Bailey Island (Maine) to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:56, 1 October 2010 (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:Sport societies in Romania[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. Non-admin close. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sport societies in Romania to Category:Sports societies in Romania

Nominator's rationale: I mistakenly created the category under the misspelled name Nergaal (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just create the correctly spelled one and tag the other one for speedy deletion per author's request. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2010 (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:Maccabiah competitors for Romania[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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: category not notable (only one entry in three subcategories) Nergaal (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - categories creator. The category will get populated just like all the others have and these are notable athletes who pass all Wiki qualifications. -NYC2TLV (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per rationale of other categories for large international sporting events. -SpeechFreedom (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps. Certainly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2010 (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:Romania at the Maccabiah[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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: category not notable Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - categories creator. The category will get populated just like all the others have and these are notable athletes who pass all Wiki qualifications. -NYC2TLV (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per rationale of other categories for large international sporting events. -SpeechFreedom (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps. Certainly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2010 (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:Maccabiah footballers of Romania[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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: category not notable Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - categories creator. The category will get populated just like all the others have and these are notable athletes who pass all Wiki qualifications. -NYC2TLV (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per rationale of other categories for large international sporting events where participants are classified by sport. -SpeechFreedom (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps. Certainly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2010 (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:Poor English welcome messages[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. — ξ ^xplicit 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Poor English welcome messages to Category:Non-English welcome messages

Nominator's rationale: These have nothing to do with bad English; their purpose is for users who appear to be better in other languages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Welcoming committee has been notified of this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:13, 1 October 2010 (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:Independiente[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 all. — ξ ^xplicit 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Independiente to Category:Club Atlético Independiente

Propose renaming Category:Independiente footballers to Category:Club Atlético Independiente footballers

Propose renaming Category:Independiente managers to Category:Club Atlético Independiente managers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Club Atlético Independiente. Tassedethe (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2010 (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:Palestinian refugees[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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 2#Category:Palestinian refugees. — ξ ^xplicit 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Palestinian refugees to Category:NEW CATEGORY

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a to-be-determined name. We need to differntiate between the Palestinian refugees themselves and the articles relating to them. Given that 80% of Palestinians are refugees, I want to populate the correct category with the articles related to the refugees themselves. TM 14:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless you can suggest a definite target. If the object is to split the people from articles relating to them generally, I would suggest creating something like Category:Palestinian refugee issues and then populating it, leaving the people here. However a number of those articles will already be in other Palestinian categories, so that perhaps the answer is merely to delete all the non-people articles, except somethign as a main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2010 (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:National identity card[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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:National identity card to Category:National identity cards

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This newly-created category is redundant to the already-existing CAT:National identity cards, but its creator appears to be edit warring to keep it in place. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge per speedy criterion C2A, pluralization. There is no good reason to have a pluralized and a non-pluralized version. Thinking this was uncontroversial, I deleted this and merged the contents to Category:National identity cards, but the creator has re-created it and so I suppose this formal nomination becomes necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy ok with me. Maybe leave soft redirect. I thought singular is more logical for the topmost, I was never against having plural. But now see that other within the parent cat also use plural. So - my fault. Sorry. User:TruckCard 79.193.135.8 (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fixed my edits. All pages and subcategories now at Category:National identity cards - User:TruckCard 79.193.135.8 (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2010 (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:Volleyball Coaching Bible contributors[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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no article on Volleyball Coaching Bible. People are not categorized by a book they contribute to, per WP:OC. Tassedethe (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2010 (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:New Zealand marae[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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New Zealand marae to Category:Marae in New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All other subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures in New Zealand are in the proposed form. To pre-empt two points, BTW, yes, there are marae in other countries, such as the Cook islands, and yes, the plural of marae is simply marae (it's a Māori word, and plurals are thus denoted by a different definite article, not by noun endings). Grutness...wha? 09:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. This one probably even qualifies as a speedy based on criterion C2C. I think there are marae in a few location in the United States too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:52, 22 September 2010 (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:Reception of Tolkien[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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Reception of Tolkien to Category:Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien

:Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the lead article and because in most instances full names of authors should be used in category names. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAz GaA 15:53, 25 September 2010 (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:Tolkien 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: speedy keep per WP:SK#Applicability, point three. — ξ ^xplicit 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Nominator's rationale: Delete - this is directly analogous to categories for performers who have performed certain kinds of characters or in particular styles, a form of overcategorization. A referenced article suggested by the currently-redirected Art inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien would no doubt be fascinating but this is not a proper basis for a category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAz GaA 15:54, 25 September 2010 (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:Jewish Poker Players[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 to delete. — ξ ^xplicit 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure that this is an appropriate category. For starters, it's including people who happen to play poker recreationally or as a hobby where it is not the reason they are notable—like Jason Alexander, David Schwimmer, etc. I'm also not sure that it's necessary to divide poker players by religion and/or ethnicity. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In poker, a players ethnicity/religion is almost never defining.--TM 13:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, actually this precedence has been set a long time ago. We have categories called Jewish mathematicians, Jewish actors, Jewish comedians, etc., in poker and other fields ethnicity/religion is almost always defining. Valoem ^talk 16:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be interested in hearing why it's actually defining in this particular instance. Are there detailed studies of Jewish poker players? Is there a distinctively "Jewish way" of playing poker? Are their special organisations for Jewish poker players? Do Jewish poker players always play with an empty chair beside them, just in case Elijah comes by and wants to get in? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Category:Jewish mathematicians was deleted years ago, but Category:Jewish scientists continues. Category:Poker players has no other ethnic subcats that I can see, or other odd-ball subcats except for Category:Poker players from Melbourne; and Category:Gamblers likewise has no ethnic subcats. So let's keep it this way and delete. Occuli (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same as athlete categories of other ethnic minorities which are notable. -NYC2TLV (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (category creator) - Wikipedia is filled with Jewish categories, we could go on a long time; categories for Jewish almost everything; 31 lists of Jews in sports; 30 pages of Israeli ports people; 15 different categories of Jews in sports; categories for Jewish composers, existentialists; I could keep on going. If we drop this category, why not drop the category "Israeli poker players"? The topic of Jewish participation in poker has been extensively covered in popular press. See my talk page for a partial list of the articles I have found. I strongly believe this page is relevant and important because it goes against the popular stereotype of the Jew as a doctor lawyer, banker, etc. It is quite interesting to read the Jewish press, in particular, to see the pride that Jews have in breaking clear of that stereotype. If the consensus so wishes we can limit the category to those who have made major professional contributions, though I would prefer to include those celebrities who have played in tv tournaments. To respond to Namiba, who questions whether ethnicity/religion is defining: If not, why are Vietnamese players always identified as such on tv and have Vietnamese cheering sections? Precedent in Wiki is to define poker players (and others) ethnically/relgiously; Nam Le was born in the U.S. of Vietnanese parents, yet he is in the category of "Vietnamese poker players"; he is ethnically defined. Yo-Yo Ma was born in France, lived his life in the U.S. and is listed in the category of Chinese classical cellists. Joe Dimaggio is in the category American sports people of Italian descent. Leonard Bernstein is a Jewish composer. Jews have always been defined as Jews, have kept a unique identity for 4000 years, consider themselves a "tribe" and refer to each other as "landsmen". Their poker players deserve their own category.Mwinog2777 (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC

* Delete - overcategorization by a trivial intersection of religion/ethnicity and activity. There is no such thing as a Jewish way to play poker. There is no body of study that indicates that Jews play poker in any way that's different from how Gentiles play it. We do not categorize poker players by any other religion. We do not categorize poker players by any other ethnicity. The supposed dual religion/ethnicity argument doesn't apply. The comparison to the poker players by nationality tree is invalid because there is no such nation as "Jew" (note Category:Israeli poker players for those players who are actually from a quote-unquote Jewish country). Nam Le is in my opinion miscategorized as a Vietnamese player because he is a natural born United States citizen. He should be categorized as an American poker player and an American of Vietnamese descent. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAz GaA 16:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki precedent is have categories of Jewish sports people and chess players. Kevin Youkilis' category is Jewish baseball player; Bobby Fisher is in category of Jewish chess player. Should we take these categories out of Wiki? If it is good for various sports and chess, why not poker? BTW, there is no Jewish way to play baseball, but that doesn't seem to offend Wiki readers as much as this potential category. Mwinog2777 (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~::* What about this or that category cuts no ice with me. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)~~ Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAz GaA 16:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point; just because there is a category of Jewish baseball players doesn't mean we NEED one on poker players. I used the above to show that there was a precedence in wiki for this, and what I was doing was quite within the norm. Nevertheless, in the body of my argument I made other salient (I hope) points. The category is important for other reasons, I concluded. Among other things, there is a body of press about this subject (please go to my talk page). The category debunks popular stereotypes. For better or worse, Jews have been characterized as a distinct group for millenia. Even with a black U.S. president we have not arrived at a world that is color blind, religious origin blind, ethnic blind. Please read List of Jews in sports and understand the explication for the indication for those lists and this category. Mwinog2777 (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a sidenote, why did you go through and add this category to a large number of articles where there is no claim to being either a professional poker player and/or being Jewish? These types of categories require sourcing, especially for BLPs. Please go back and revert yourself for articles where there is no claim or sourcing for Judaism.--TM 19:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::::* It is the job of Wikipedia to present information dispassionately. It is not the job of Wikipedia to "debunk popular stereotypes" per WP:POINT. It is not our concern how prejudiced the world may be. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAz GaA 16:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was dispassionate. Simply listed Jewish poker players. Coulndn't be more dispassionate than that. Gave reasons I feel it should not be deleted. Went to other sites in wiki and used same logic. It is not our concern that the world is prejudiced? Are you saying we shouldn't mention prejudice in articles about the Roma, or the paranoia in Arizona about the Mexicans? Namiba: I vetted each and every name I used. Go to my talk page, go thru articles listed and you will find verification for each name you have already deleted. I added no name without clear verification. For at least next 24 hours, I will withdraw from the fray.Mwinog2777 (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mwinog, no one is going to check your talk page. The sources need to be in the article or it doesn't matter. That way, we can judge whether they are reliable or not.--TM 22:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::* If prejudice against the Roma or the Mexicans is documented in reliable secondary sources then we should indeed include that information. We should not, however, editorialize about prejudice against anyone. It is not our job to tell the world that prejudice is bad. It is not our job to create categories to prove that Jews participate in occupations that are not sterotypically "Jewish". It is not our job to categorize articles at every conceivable intersection of any two facts. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAz GaA 16:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was list Jewish poker players. I did nothing else. I never editorialized, I was totally dispassionate. All I did was to submit a list. Totally bland. Nothing else. The list stands on its own merits. FYI, all the celebrities I have listed have played in Celebrity Poker on tv. I am not simply listing all Jews in the world who play poker. I have not listed all the celebrities, yet, in deference to the opinions from various responders. I agree, with you: "It is not our job categorize articles at every conceivable intersection of any two facts." I have not done so. I have not chosen random intersections, such as age of first female marriage in a state and its voting record, or potato production in western Europe and Italian immigration to the U.S. I simply chose one intersection that I think is relevant/important. Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::* You stated that part of your reason for making the category was to combat the stereotype of the professions in which Jews participate. That's advancing a POV and is not dispassionate. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAz GaA 16:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list was just a list, nothing more. I have tried to explicate why there seemed to be a large number of other categories for Jews on wiki. We have a disagreement that is substantive. I think the best thing to do at this time is let it play out, and see if there is a consensus, one way or the other. We won't resolve it between the the 2 of us. Take care, Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hopeless overcategorization, and so applied randomly and inappropriately. There is nothing about poker that call for religious, ethnic or racial categories. (If it is kept it should be moved to a URL with proper capitalization.) Also, all people in it should qualify to be in the poker players catehory itself, and Jewish people who have happened to play poker is not appropriate. We could have thousands of entries otherwise. 2005 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed some, not all, of the well-known Jewish celebrities who have played in Celebrity Poker. Clearly, no my attempt to list all Jews in the world who play poker. If there is consensus to take celebrities out, then the consensus should prevail. BTW, agree with Valoem (above): "...in poker and other fields ethnicity/religion is almost always defining." Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::* Can you point to the scholarly research that has determined that Jews as a class play poker differently from how atheists or Methodists or Rastafarians or Moonies play it? Being Jewish is defining of a person. Being a poker player may be defining of a person. Being a poker-playing Jew isn't. The argument seems to boil down to "but Jewish is different!" No, it's really not. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAz GaA 16:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category should be deleted if for only that reason. Jewish clebrities playing poker on a celebrity program does not make them notable as "Jewish Poker Players". There is an existing consensus and it is directly opposite: This category is for well known poker players, including those that win major tournaments, notable authors of poker-related books, those in the Poker Hall of Fame (or similar halls of fame) for poker playing, and those that are featured frequently on televised poker shows (not "celebrity" poker shows). In the future I suggest you do not make subcategories that are 100% directly contradictory to the main category. Also the idea that religion is defining in poker is completely absurd. It never comes up. It is not defining, no obstacles or prejudices need to be overcome. Zilch. This is in fact another reason this category must be deleted because the people included are totally random. In no way are they the sum of all jewish poker players who have articles, because the majority of the time no one even knows the religion of most players. There are many reasons to delete and none to keep. 2005 (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Valoem.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was brought up on the WP:Poker project pages.

Keep, but clean up I have no problem with keeping this, if it is cleaned up to meet the general criteria cited by User:2005 above. People who simply play poker is too low of a threshold as most people have played poker at one time or another. The criteria needs ot be one of significance and having been known for playing the poker.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through and cleaned up the category. The only people who are left on the list are those who are actually notable poker players.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~::* Do they all play Jew-style? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)~~ Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAz GaA 16:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Read the articles and see how many show that being Jewish is defining for a poker player. Actually being fluent in Hewbrew is a needed category since in at least one case, that appears to be more defining for the individual then being Jewish which is not asserted in the article. Religion and/or ethnicity based categories always seem to have problems and need cleanup. That alone is a clue that the category will not work. So unless someone can show how being Jewish affects how they play this category needs to go. We need something better then WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to keep the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with the rationale that the category has to affect how they play this category needs to go. Cultural identities are often explored by looking for others with similar heritages and backgrounds. The acceptance of racially driven categories is NOT WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but rather demonstrates that there is a long standing acceptance of such categories. We are not talking about "otherstuff" that exists because nobody ever questioned their existence, but other stuff that has been challenged and whose existence has been routinely supported. To override these long standing precedences, you would need to show exceptional rationale and overwhelming support to do so. (IMO beyond the scope of a small CFD). The fact that a category needs clean up is not grounds for deletion (just as having a poorly written article is not grounds for deletion. But even so, as mentioned above, I did go through and cleaned out the non-notable poker players.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm startled by the obsessive ethnic categorization here on wikipedia. I also find it strange that the arguments in favor of this are largely based on precedent. We need to fundamentally address the question here - what relevance does one's ethnicity or religion have on their achievements in the arts, science, poker playing, or whatever? None. As other contributers have mentioned, there is no 'Jewish' way of playing poker, or anything else like that. To me there is something extremely sinister about attempting to ethnically categorize notable persons, especially in this instance. The same logic holds true regardless of it being a poker player, artist, politician, etc. The Fire Tones 20:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining characteristic of the individuals involved that is used in the real world as a basis of identification. Any necessary cleanup can be addressed on the individual articles where this category has been misapplied. Alansohn (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful category of a public minority within a legitimate sport. Meets WP:EGRS inclusion criteria. Also Nominator is unsure. This shows no rational reasoning, just personal opinion. This results in a lack of consensus often. QuAz GaA 18:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(category creator) Agree with Quazgaa. Guidelines note that dedicated group-subject subcategories "should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." And, "generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources." The topic has been established as such by external sources. Read my talk page for an extensive list of such.Mwinog2777 (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh c'mon, clearly it fails that criteria. A few articles in Jewish magazines mentioning some players are Jewish doesn't remotely make this "culturally significant". There is zero cultural significance to Jewish players versus Catholic or Persian players, none whatsoever. 2005 (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been multiple feature articles in both local and national publications, including the non-Jewish Pokerati.Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2010 (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:Coil[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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Coil to Category:Coil (band)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Coil (band). Coil is ambiguous and this is not the primary meaning. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. (There is another band Lacuna Coil and an unrelated category Category:Coil knots.) Occuli (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping by to say either is fine with me (I created the category), so don't worry about hurting my feelings. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. possibly speedy rename since creator is okay with name change. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:50, 20 September 2010 (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:Radio Disney personalities[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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Nominator's rationale: Delete - per long-standing consensus against categorizing performers by venue or media outlet. Radio personalities can and frequently do change outlets and would rapidly accumulate many similar clutterful categories. See here for a partial list of CFDs dating back five years. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAz GaA 16:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. They all had only limited periods with the station and worked for other stations. Cjc13 (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2010 (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:Delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention[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) 10:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A non-defining characteristic. Being a delegate to a party convention is not an indication in itself of notability and no one's career was changed by having the delegate position. Seems like a bit of trivia to me. TM 04:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom as non-defining. Delegates are often chosen because of their notability in some other arena and very few become notable, much less defined, from being a delegate. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Roscelese (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining enough to make a category. Hekerui (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2010 (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.