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. – FayenaticLondon 19:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: nominated for C2D rename at full CfD after the proposed rename was opposed for speedy, see this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 28 May 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.
Category:Holidays and observances by scheduling (ad hoc)[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. MER-C 12:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, "ad hoc" is not a defining characteristic of the one article of this category because it has been celebrated according to a specific schedule - hence not on ad hoc basis. No need to merge, the article is already well categorized in Category:Moveable holidays (nth weekday of the month). Also delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category. While there is one article, it is miscategorized. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:17, 29 May 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.
Category:Holidays and observances by scheduling (Christmas day of week-based)[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. – FayenaticLondon 12:35, 4 August 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:relisted date 2015 August 22. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word "martyr" is a biased word. How does it come that such a category exists in Wikipedia!! Diako « Talk » 20:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile the discussion about Category:Martyrs has been closed as keep, so I withdraw my procedural oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- It should be something like Category:People classified by Iran as martyrs. I sampled several articles. Some related to Iranian soldiers killed in the Iran-Iraq war; others to people killed in various circumstances by bombs. The identification as martyrs seems to be an official one by the post-1979 Iranian government, so that this is strictly not a POV category but in the nature of a postumous award. As a national award, it probably does not fall foul of OC#AWARD, but it needs a headnote defining this scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At worst, Listify then delete, but that would be a less appropriate option in my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't distance the categories that way with "classified by" for religious or communist martyrs in the Category:Martyrs tree. I'm not neccesarilly opposed to the change, but we should be even handed.RevelationDirect (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Rahpouyan. I have nominated this category for deletion and I'm myself an Iranian. I believe that all the categories you mentioned should be deleted or at least they should be renamed.Diako « Talk » 06:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not important for me that where are you from. Just I need a logical reason for deletion tag. What's your reason to delete or rename all these categories?-- Rahpouyan110 (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Struck comment by sockpuppet of User:Srahmadi. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said that I'm myself an Iranian as an answer to your comment that you said "Does wikipedia has double standard?". I told the reason. The word "martyr" is a biased word. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should respect the neutrality. Using such words are againt the policies of wikipedia.Diako « Talk » 06:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK Sir. If you want to respect the wikipedia rules and you say that it's a bias word, so why you didn't start deleting the other martyrs category?!?! category:Iranian martyrs has been made on 27th May 2015. So please Start putting "deletion tag" or "rename" other categories, then I will start renaming this one. Regards -- Rahpouyan110 (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Struck comment by sockpuppet of User:Srahmadi. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this only my duty to correct all the defeciencies of Wikipedia. Why don't you do it? You can nominate the other ones, I will protect you.Diako « Talk » 08:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion will lead to nowhere and it is exactly the reason why I said earlier we need a broader discussion about the martyrs tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the word 'martyr' might push one's POV, this category (and/or similar categories) is named in a neutral manner. I'd like to argue based on the fact that the readers are clearly informed by the title that the perspective of Iranians, which is not necessarily shared by other people, is expressed here only. In other terms, "Iranian martyrs" is a collection of the martyrs just from the view point of Iranians. So, no POV is being pushed! Mhhossein (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what the title means. "Iranian" is the demonym of people of Iranian ethnicity, and as such, the title simply means "martyrs who happen to be ethnically Iranian". And, in any case, the totalitarian theocratic government of Iran certainly do not represent "the view point of Iranians" anyway.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why 'clearly not', if there are sources calling them as 'Martyr'? Mhhossein (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a loaded label. The implication is that those bestowed with the label were more "righteous" than those not given the label (e.g. enemy soldiers) which is obviously completely POV.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The implication is that American people (or state) regard them as more "righteous" than others. Mhhossein (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All other martyr categories are by religion. This one is not. It does not fit the definitions of martyr, and turns the term on its head. It is not part of a widespread schema, but a stand alone set.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Iranian category doesn't stand entirely on its own, we also have Category:Revolutionary martyrs with three subcats and a fair amount of articles. Besides the article Martyrs allows for secular martyrs. So I would really discuss in the context of the entire tree, see this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject in Iran and its historical/media/academia subject matter of "Sacred Defense". Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... I asked that he be blocked after evidence of socket puppets, but you would have to actually read the discussion to see that. Why do you try so hard to make this personal? Ism schism (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because your tendentious editing is caused by a person - namely you.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you're still upset about the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Keshvari discussion? You need to move on from that. These discussions don't need emotions added to them. Keep it rational, please. Ism schism (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not upset about that discussion at all - I am upset about your lacking competence.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you've run out of real arguments. Ism schism (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that looks like the description of you.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after closing the discussion on Category:Martyrs, however without prejudice against purging. For individual biographies the martyrdom should obviously be sourced and I'm not sure if this is always the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we find a single article to put in this category? Even legitimate historical Islamic martyrs like Husayn ibn Ali are generally Arab and the notion of an Iranian "nationality" is a modern construct anyway.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a harsh oversimplification considering the number of lives lost since the revolution. Ism schism (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does "the number of lives lost since the revolution" have to do with anything?--Anders Feder (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out the large number of deaths is a response to your question "Can we find a single article to put in this category?" Clearly, there are enough to choose from. Ism schism (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does the number of deaths have to with the number of martyrs to choose from?--Anders Feder (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I think that if we clarify the meaning of martyrs here then we can judge on the remaining the category or deletion. I think that in Iraq-Iran war the meaning of word martyrs is not religious but every one who has killed as a human in an ethical good way. in other words the martyrs are those who killed as ethical man. this ethics is not religious because in iran there are many martyrs who are not Muslims but they are Christian. in simple, this concept is ethical. according to criterion of ethics maybe every body who defend of his country in front of enemy ,wether Iranian or any other nationality, could be count as martyrs. therefore we have to separate two meaning. religious vs ethical. although the ethical criterion maybe find out in religion of course.--m,sharaf (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources for this alternative definition of the term?--Anders Feder (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the category has been emptied and been nominated for speedy deletion. I've requested to put the speedy deletion on hold at the category talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment it seems like this category has never been tagged for CfD, I'll do that now and relist the discussion for procedural reasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:00, 22 August 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:no consensus. As there is clearly no consensus to delete, it may be worth making another nomination to seek consensus on renaming. For the record, the current members are also now all listed in the main article Vine (service). – FayenaticLondon 20:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Is someone really defined by the social media account they have? Even if a few individuals may be, the category needs to be constructed so that the inclusion criteria is obvious and not ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike other forms of social media which provide windows to celebrities, the difference is that Vine is a vessel these people have used to create their fame. It's exactly the same as Wikipedia's list of Youtube Personalities, except still in its infancy. While it's pretty bare bones in its current form, I do believe it has a place here. With that said, I feel it should be renamed Vine Personalities. Crispy385 (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then should it not be liftified instead? Neutralitytalk 17:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that even a word? Serious question, I have no idea what you just said. Crispy385 (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Also, rereading that, my reply seemed ruder than I intended. Sorry about that. Anyway, I'll admit I'm new to Wikipedia, could you tell me what the functional difference between a category and list is? It seems just a different format for the same information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispy385 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhat complex, but a list is a standalone page that lists its members. The advantage is that a list allows for references and more detail. Categories are helpful for classification and navigation. Typically we only use categories for defining features. Neutralitytalk 22:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of that went completely over my head, but my argument was merely that the information was worthy of a place here. If you feel it's better served in list form than a category, then sure, let's go with that.Crispy385 (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like Category:Vine video performers. The articles that I sampled were all for heavily-followed people performing on the platform, not merely people who had subscribed to the platorm. That might fall foul of WP:OC#PERF, but this seems to relate to people who are famous for little or nothing else. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Listified may be the best option here. If kept or renamed, that result should be conditioned on creating an introduction that makes clear what the inclusion criteria are. At the end, any inclusion criteria can not be subjective or ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per nominator and Neutrality. It's not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 17 July 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:delete. MER-C 13:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only entry in this category is currently at AfD and very likely to be deleted. Category was created by the same editor as that article and I see little if any potential encyclopedic use for this category. Safiel (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- I did not see this before the AFD was closed. At present we have a stub article sitting in category space. Should the definition be retained in Wikionary? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? Transwiki to wiktionary -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no. The definition isn't a real thing - it was made up by the user whose article was deleted. Without some independent evidence, I wouldn't transwiki it. PianoDan (talk) 15:42, 1 June 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:delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. WP:OCEPON. There aren't enough articles/subcategories here to warrant an eponymous category for this music act. The record label article shouldn't even be here. It's the artist's article that belongs in Category:OVO Sound artists not the other way around. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:51, 28 May 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.
