Category:Police officers indicted for murder[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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Being indicted for murder is not defining for police officers any more than being indicted of any other specific crime in a low-level court is for any other profession. There are a few other "indicted" categories but they tend to be for things like crimes against humanity from international-level tribunals. Nominated once before in 2008 when it was "Police officers accused of murder" which resulted in the current name. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clean Up and rename: I have only sampled the category, but I found several people who had subsequently been convicted (who should be in the convicted category; one or two who had been convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter; one who is still on the run, but may be a scrapegoat; and one who died before being convicted. I would suggerst that the conviction category should relate to "unlawful killing", so that manslaughter could be included. Alternatively, there should be a sibling Category:Police officers convicted of manslaughter. This category should become Category:Police officers indicted for unlawful killing. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address the central question of the nomination, why the intersection of "police officer" and "indicted of murder" is so defining as to warrant categorization. It's unusual for a police officer to be indicted for murder, but it's unusual for anyone to be indicted for murder because murder is itself unusual. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We categorize by conviction, not be mere indictment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPL. Many people who are charged or indicted are subsequently acquitted, and there are serious WP:BLP issues in categorising people in this way. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 11 October 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Single-entry category with no clear chance of expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2013 (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.
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category purports to gather "terms or titles given to people who are new at some activity". I can't see such a degree of commonality between such disparate subjects as coming out as a debutante and serving an internship and entering the formal training of a novitiate. Mish-mash category casting too wide a net over too broad a subject matter. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This category is drawing together articles with a common theme. This is quite common in WP's category structure. The category may ned a little purging, but that is all. If this were categorising individuals, I would be taking a very different view. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you offer examples of similar categories that gather articles on as vague a concept as this (and then explain why their existence is relevant to the existence of this category)? And again, where is the commonality in theme between a teenage girl being presented to society and a man sequestering himself to begin monastic study? Where is the commonality in theme between someone not getting paid to fetch coffee for the executives in some random office and a person going through basic training for the armed forces? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems reasonable as a type of role or employment etc. I removed "People by status" cat. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is "debutante" employment? What does someone "employed" as an Army recruit have in common with someone entering a convent? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless mixing of things that really have not much in common that isn't shared with many other things not belonging to the category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are simply too many issues here starting with the title. Newcomers and beginners are two different concepts so at a minimum, this needs to be split if it is going to be kept. If not deleted, purge inappropiate content like Scribe (ER) which is a position, albeit temporary and a way point in some career paths, but apparently not a newcomer or a beginner. Despite the arguments above, I fail to see how something like being a debutant which is a one time thing and does not require any training can be compared to being a rookie which is the starting point in a path. Since one is a rookie 3, 4 or more times, how can we say that this is correctly classed in this category? After you have been a rookie once say in sports, you are no longer a beginner or newcomer to that sport. You may be starting at a new level, but you are no longer a beginner or a newcomer. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so we do not categorize articles by concept, which is what is being done here. We categorize articles by subject, and these cut from education to high society, to the military, to religious orders. There is no common subject here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2013 (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.
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.
Comment -- Support in principle, but we have frequently deleted articles on undergraduate societies as NN. Should we have the articles categorised here at all? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per convention of Category:Student societies in the United Kingdom. The notability of articles is not a CFD issue, so if Peterkingiron thinks any of the pages in this category should be deleted, he should PROD or AFD them. If that results in a significantly depleted category, then a new deletion nomination may be appropriate ... but until then, CFD's role is to discuss the categorisation of any articles which do exist. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 8 October 2013 (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.
