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 00:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by lack of convincing rationale. It's defining, sourced and it would be over the top to apply G10 here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep The name of the category looks odd, but I think renaming it to something more palatable like "African American only organizations" would be ok. "Blacks" is more of an American thing since other English readers (South Africans) would consider themselves African, not "Blacks".Huitzilopochtli (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category seems to have been created as an WP:ATTACK category. I support deletion per the nominator. Bmbaker88 (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep to African-American only organizations. Defining and sourced, but I agree that the current title is inappropriate. feminist 02:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question to those who have asserted the category is sourced: Where? None of the three articles in the category mention their being "black-only organizations", and they certainly have no sources to support an assertion not made. See WP:CAT#Articles: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 15:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about the source that User:Wlmg mentioned in the discussion above, which is also referred to in the article? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source for Miss Black America , "About us Founded in 1968 by J. Morris Anderson, The Miss Black America Pageant is the oldest pageant for women of color." [2]--Wlmg (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about the fact that Marcocapelle added two groups to the category with no sources, or the ex post facto "Look, I found a source!" nonsense by Wlmg? (PS - That sentence doesn't say what you want it to say.) — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 17:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-defining and with POV undertones. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2017 (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:LGBT broadcasters from the United Kingdom[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: Per past consensus of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT, Category:LGBT broadcasters is not a category where subcategorization by individual country is desirable. We do not routinely create subcategories for every possible intersection of occupation, nationality and LGBTness — rather, we restrict those to a limited selection of specific occupations where that triple-intersection can itself be considered a defining characteristic in its own right (e.g. Category:LGBT writers because LGBT literature also has notability as an aspect of the national literatures, and thus it is useful to cross-reference the "LGBT writers" and "National writers" categories in that manner), while for most occupations we only want a single transnational category for all LGBT people in that occupation, not a separate subcategory for each individual country. Being an LGBT broadcaster in the United Kingdom is not substantively different from being an LGBT broadcaster in Canada or Australia or Germany — the point of definingness is at the level of being an LGBT broadcaster at all, not at what specific country they might happen to be working in. (Upmerge to Category:LGBT people from the United Kingdom not needed, as all five people here are already in Category:LGBT people from England.) Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst I agree that there's not much difference being an LGBT broadcaster in the UK in comparison with Canada, Australia or Germany, there is a big difference in comparison to being an LGBT broadcaster in sexually conservative countries, such as Iran or China. Jim Michael (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only in the sense that being LGBT period is different in those countries — but not in the sense that it has a defining impact on one's practice of the occupation of broadcasting. Other than the significantly reduced likelihood of any LGBT public figure being out about their LGBTness in the more repressive places — which itself pretty much kiboshes our ability to categorize them as being LGBT at all, since not out means not sourceable — the triple intersection of occupation with sexuality with nationality does not define a person from the UK differently than it defines a person from Iran. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The target is large enough to merit a split by country. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, British(English) and American categories should be diffused more easily because they contain so many more articles. Note that the American category is split by state, so that is another natural way of diffusing, even while it may be equally irrelevant to the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2017 (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: Stupidly-named category which as of now is mostly populated with flights on which no one died. EEng 16:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This category does not make any sense. Yintan 16:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename. We already have the "Aviation accidents and incidents" categories, so this doesn't add much more than a spooky name, especially when added to incidents that didn't result in death. If it's to be kept, it should be renamed to something clearer and more encyclopedic like "Aviation accidents and incidents with fatalities". GorillaWarfare(talk) 00:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category is unnecessary. Aviation accidents and incidents category is sufficient. Trout slap to the User(s) who deleted this category from any deadly accident article pages. This is not a good category but if the category fits the article, it shouldn't be removed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:08, 17 January 2017 (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:Opposition to Christianity in the Middle East[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. There was not enough discussion to establish consensus, especially for such a controversial topic. Feel free to repropose. (non-admin closure) Gamebuster19901(Talk║Contributions) 14:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge, both categories have very similar scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or rather delete). Both the subject's sub-cats are "Persecution of ..." and are already in the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Opposition to Christianity in the Middle East into Category:Persecution of Christians by Muslims, keeping the latter but deleting the former per User:Peterkingiron. Bmbaker88 (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2017 (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:rename for two reasons. First, beheadings is a trivial intersection, so let's drop that. Second, 'Christianity-related' is vague (it could even be about Christian martyrs) while the content of the category is more specific, which may well be reflected in the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I doubt the people who were beheaded found it trivial. EEng 16:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly more enjoyable than being burnt. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete (or rather split, or move to better categories) -- This is a mixture of executed witches and executed opponents of popes. These are different subjects and should not be combined. This needs to be emptied manually, not simply deleted, to prevent a loss of data. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this category involves very different reasons for having been executed. Witches and opponents of popes are just two reasons but almost every article has its own reason. The articles have, apparently, been brought together just for the aspect of beheading. I'm not sure how this can reasonably be split but a simple alternative might be to upmerge to Category:Deaths by decapitation. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a [[Category:Islamism-related beheadings]]... so is Marcocapelle suggesting that we do something different with that Category, as well? Why should we censor which version of mythology (aka religion) gets (or doesn't get) a Wikipedia category on the topic? If one mythology is listed, then they should all be listed. Pretty sure Christianity has a higher frag rate than Islam does (since Christians have been the most barbaric, historically). Christians have beheaded many people for the sake of their religion. We shouldn't deprive the best murderers of having their own category. Give credit where credit is due, no? KnowledgeBattle(Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 05:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: It seems that some people have gone and removed lots of names from that list – there used to be more. I will try to re-add to the category. KnowledgeBattle(Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 05:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue that User:Peterkingiron had with the Christian category is that "Christianity-related" is a too broad umbrella term for the content of that category and I agree with that. We don't have a Category:Islam-related beheadings either. We do have a Category:Islamism-related beheadings though and this is much more specific than just Islam-related so there's nothing wrong with this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (not changing vote) -- The category currently contains an article on religious conflict in an African state; 3 witches; 2 political opponents of popes; and one person regarded (perhaps unfairly as a Christian heretic). This suffers from a common defect in "related" categories. Also, I am far from sure that we need to split beheadings from other kinds of executions. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per much of Peterkingiron arguments, and I agree with Marcocapelle statement that Christian category is that "Christianity-related" is a too broad umbrella term for the content of that category.--Jobas (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to better categories since beheadings are one limited form of death, not the only one and certainly not the most prominent one in context of Christianity in history. I don't think that beheading is even associated with Christianity (except for John the Baptist who was beheaded unjustly). I think that with Islam, beheadings are more associated with that due to public executions via extremist groups. Though I have some reservations there too. Maybe the one on Islam should be removed too.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Huitzilopochtli. Christ stated that "those who live by the sword, die by the sword". A Christian is a follower of Christ and to blame beheadings on the religion upholding the tenets of Christ (who taught the mentioned peaceful beliefs) seems agenda driven and nonsensical. The category is an WP:ATTACK page that should be deleted. Bmbaker88 (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2017 (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:Capital punishment and anti-Catholicism[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 09:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category does not give much clarity while Category:20th-century Roman Catholic martyrs seems to be much more specific. Bmbaker88 (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2017 (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.
