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: There is literally no need for this category. Deleting old userspace drafts have no purpose and we could save mountains of admin time and editor loss and aggravation with this one simple trick. This entire category has become one admin's personal white whale. Better to delete it all and let Ahab and the rest of the admin corp focus on something useful. 166.171.123.100 (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose – Many stale drafts contain useful, encyclopedic content that can be moved to draft or main namespace. Mass deletion would be a shame, destroying thousands of hours of work by Wikipedia's contributors in the name of saving admin time or to refocus admin efforts. North America1000 23:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can do that. I'm deleting this wrong headed and stupid category. I want to save all the drafts unlike some people.
Strong oppose as there's no actual explanations for deleting this maintenance category. Are we going to start deleting other "no purpose" categories? SwisterTwistertalk 02:36, 27 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The object belongs to another established Minerva Family acknowledged by Astdys, which originally included other asteroids whose categories have since been overwritten by @Tom.Reding:'s asteroid manual redirect efforts. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In your redirect project, I was under the impression that your categories overwrote existing categories- if an asteroid had something such as "discoveries by X" that was overwritten by your programs. Of course I have not checked. I apologize for any trouble I caused in assuming you had done so. Either way, there was an asteroid somewhere in the 9000s that was included in the category, which has since been removed. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Astdys only has the Minerva family and not the Gefion family. Peter James (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose If the former existence of the Ceres and Minerva families are important (which I'm assuming they are, if only for historical record?), then this category (or perhaps Category:Former Minerva asteroids) should be populated, which I can gladly do if given a list of articles belonging to each. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am no expert, but the Gefion family seems to be S-type, whereas Minerva is C-type. If this is an old name, we ought to merge but keep this as a redirect. Is there an appropriate WP project that can be notified to help us out? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Yes, (93) Minerva is now considered a probable interloper in the (1272) Gefion family, so this category is obsolete.[1] It is superseded by Category:Gefion asteroids. Praemonitus (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one article categories are almost never justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 14 February 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.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. This close is no bar to an early re-nomination, as user:Monochrome Monitor unhelpfully removed the CFD tag from the category page after two weeks.[2] – FayenaticLondon 11:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Need clarification. If there are some peoples in this category that are no longer considered Semitic, why wouldn't we just purge them and otherwise keep the category as is? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term itself is obsolete, for all peoples - ancient and modern. Semitic, Hamitic and Japhetic are Biblical ways of categorizing race, which fell out of fashion with the rest of 19th century scientific racism. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is the nominator suggesting that the entire contents of the category are now "formerly considered", and "considered by whom?" - where all mainstream scientists agree on non-planets, can the same be said of how to categorize peoples? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is correct. No mainstream scientist considers Semitic to refer to a people or race or ethnic group. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this further, an alternative renaming would be Semitic speaking peoples. Any references in modern scholarship to Semitic peoples will be using the phrase as shorthand for the linguistic grouping. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This alternative makes a lot more sense than the original proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on the original proposal, tending towards complete deletion or upmerging. All of the subcategories for former names of people are already in Category:Ancient peoples of the Near East. The 'modern' or current groupings are in one or more of the Israel– or Arab–related ethnic group categories. There doesn't seem to be precedent for Semitic (language) speaking people; no 'Germanic speaking people' or 'Romance speaking people', and Semitic isn't a language. People speak a specific language, not a language family. giso6150 (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep -- This is an obsolete term. I do in fact recall seeing Hamatic on an old map, but that does not really help us. Category:Semitic speaking peoples would work, but is it going to add anything to an existing linguistic category:Category:Semitic languages? A formerly considered category is not helpful, to my mind. The fact that this is an obsolete term is best dealt with in a headnote on the category, rather than by altering the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
definite keep See turkic peoples, romance peoples, celtic peoples, germanic peoples... semitic is not the same as japhetic and hamitic and saying such is a fallacy. The later two are obsolete while the former is a linguistic family. There are no hamitic languages or japhetic languages... but there are Semitic languages. This is absolutely absurd. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a valid category by language family, not a racial category. As for the Hamitic languages, we mention them as an obsolete grouping of the Berber languages, the Cushitic languages, and the Egyptian language. Which are all still considered part of the Afroasiatic languages (also known as Hamito-Semitic). As for Japhetite languages, this is an old synonym for the Indo-European languages. Not every mention of the terms has to do with racial groupings. Dimadick (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So we are agreed that the existing Category:Semitic languages is valid. But "Semitic peoples" is confusing and leads to misunderstanding given the historical connection with race. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an abandoned categorizing schema, we should not perpetuate it in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 14 February 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:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2016[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 12:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category that has been empty for three weeks and from which editors keep removing the CSD C1 tag because it might be needed in the future. I've tried to explain that unless if falls under certain criteria (maintenance categories, categories depopulated out of process) that empty categories are routinely deleted and this one can be restored if needed in the future but my explanations have been for naught. Categories that have been created in advance for 2016 and beyond for future events are normally deleted unless, like for the 2016 Summer Olympics, there are articles that have already been written (and hence, the categories are not empty). LizRead!Talk! 15:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This category is empty. No opposition to recreating it when needed. Dimadick (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not needed, and hopefully never needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was initially in favor of keeping it, but I guess we can always just recreate it when it became appropriate. But I still think it would've been a waste of time, IMO. Parsley Man (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I hope there are no incidents, but if there are it can be re-created then. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:38, 31 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. MER-C 12:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are two article in this category: one cemetery has 1 Bush out of 34 notable people buried there and the other has 2 out of 22. (The Calvary Cemeterycategory is also here but I have no idea why: none of the people in that category have the last name "Bush" and the main article makes no mention of a Bush burial.) If we start categorizing large, public cemeteries by individual people that are buried there, it would quickly lead to category clutter. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This has the feel of a performance (having a Bush) by a performer (cemetery) category. We do not allow them. Possibly listify, if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 31 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.
