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. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems non-defining. We don't typically categorize people by who they've politically supported or given money to. BDD (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination; categorizing by who people give money to is non-defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2016 (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: as per offspring Category:Sexuality and gender-related slurs, per initial category explanatory content: "Articles related to prejudices based on [[gender]] and [[Sexual orientation|sexuality]]." and per accuracy. Its not, for instance, about sexual preference and the prejudicing of personal choice not to consider one gender in relationship. GregKaye 12:36, 31 December 2015 (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: While the majority of the category content relates to gender related violence (► Rape (11 C, 53 P) ► Transphobic violence (3 C, 10 P) ► Violence against men (7 C, 19 P) ► Violence against women (18 C, 73 P)) sexuality based violence remains a huge issue especially in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, but in situations where a potential victim is forced to keep a low profile for the sake of safety and within situations in which executions etc. may be interpreted to have been poorly reported. I think that either a split or a move would be beneficial. GregKaye 12:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At second glance, I notice there is also Category:Violence against LGBT people. This suggests that the nominated category is already supposed to exclude sexual orientation related violence and this would probably make the split redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm wondering if this can be accomplished by being bold and adding sub-categories to the existing category. This seems like a complex split for a closing admin to manage. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move not all the items or subcats now in this are gender-related, rather than sex-related (not synonymous). An example: rape. In many jurisdictions rape may be committed by any gender against a victim of any gender (same as fraud, robbery, etc.). What differentiates rape is sex, not gender. As fraud and robbery, etc., are mostly about property, not sex. Thus moving to something like Category:Sexually- and gender-related violence (not "Sexuality", as again "rape" may be committed for reasons of violence or control upon victims of any gender or "sexuality", or even lack "sexuality" like committed virgins) would be most in keeping with the current contents and purpose. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree in principle, but rather than finding a difficult name it may be easier to move Category:Rape completely out of this tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that this umbrella's difficulty in definition is because we're trying to create some combination and title it that the real world doesn't use. If so, that's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH kind of. Dropping rape might simplify things, but it'll keep getting re-added I think by those who haven't been in on this discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle to be honest I think both alternatives have their advantages with both being better than the existing situation. Whatever other editors and the closing admin think is good with me. Sorry if that wasn't helpful but I will keep the issue in mind. GregKaye 12:02, 8 January 2016 (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:FA-Class National Football League/New York Giants subproject articles[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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you re-read and copyedit your nomination because as it stands I find it completely incomprehensible? Thincat (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This CFD would appear to be overdue tidying up. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2015 (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:keep without prejudice to a future -s rename proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst the two are certainly related there is a distinction as far as 'ownership' of the debt is concerned. A debt collector does not 'own' the debt, whereas a debt buyer does. There are separate articles (Debt buyer and Debt collection) which seems to legitimise the two categories. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the category as a result of a review of literature regarding the debt industry at the corporate level in the financial industry and found that this term does not refer to the average debt collection agency using individual phone calls, pay check collect, repossession, etc but to more complex financial interactions between corporate debt buyers, major banks, credit unions and increasingly the strategically planned flooding of courts with cases the debt buyers rarely lose. The Wall-Street Journal 2010 headline reads "Boom in Debt Buying Fuels Another Boom—in Lawsuits." The boom is not in debt-collecting which is subcontracted, but in debt-buying where large corporations buy and repackage debt. New York Times 2015 headline reads "Debt Buyer Faces Fine and Loss of Thousands of Court Judgments." The thriving debt industry is both a cause and consequence and of the creation of complex financial instruments such as credit default swap (CDS), (where groups of poor loans that are packaged), distressed debt with hedge funds, private equity firms and units of investment banks, sometimes called vulture funds.[10][11][12][13] as major buyers.Oceanflynn (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe Twiceuponatime and Oceanflynn pretty much nailed it. As for BDD's comment, the plural appears to be the normal practice.--Mojo Hand(talk) 18:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as Category:Debt buyers. The term might also be applied to debt factoring, which is a means of companies improving their cash flow and not limited to distressed debt. However, some high street banks engage in that kind of financing. It would not to useful to include them, just because debt factoring is part of their business. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge a buyer of debt owns debt (like a bondholder, or Treasury Bill buyer) whereas a debt collector comes to break your legs for not paying, but does not usually own the debt (unless it's the mob) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2016 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 18. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)