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: We cannot yet know what controversies 2022 will bring. Tim! (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong temporary delete: (and restore by 2022) The decision was taken late-July 2015, so this is a 2015 controversy. J 1982 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in 2022 when there's something to file in it. As noted, the controversies around the topic that's currently filed here arose and were discussed in 2015, not five years into our future — which makes it a 2015 controversy, not a 2022 controversy, because regardless of when the event is slated to take place the controversy about it arose in 2015. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 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.
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: Albums category for an artist who has released music under multiple different names at different times in his career: while it's true that most of the albums here were released as Caribou, two of them were originally released as "Manitoba" before being rereleased as Caribou after his name change, and one of them was released as "Daphni". As a result, his main BLP was moved from "Caribou (musician)" to Dan Snaith, his real name, two and a half years ago — but this category never actually followed, even though it should properly be renamed to match the head article. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 1 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.
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: Unlike other categories of the form "People with [some medical condition]" listed in this search, anorexia nervosa is a condition that a person can recover from. So no matter how many reliable sources document that a person has had anorexia at some point, we're not going to know that a person has anorexia right now, so any use of this category has a high probability of being incorrect. Apart from accuracy issues, this raises major WP:BLP issues. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Insomnia and social anxiety aren't conditions that people recover from per se; they're conditions that can come and go and come back again, and all one can really do is manage their impact somehow, such as drugs and therapy and behavioural modifications. They also don't pose the same WP:BLP issues as identifying a person as having anorexia does, either, because they're not stigmatized in the same way. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some celebs who have eating disorders have spoken publicly about them. In regard to BLP & accuracy issues, we can restrict membership of the cat to people who reliable sources have stated have been diagnosed with anorexia. Jim Michael (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael: This doesn't address my concern. Suppose a reliable source, published today, states that a certain celebrity has publicly stated that they've just been diagnosed with anorexia. Someone then adds this category. Now how do we know when to remove the category? The celebrity might overcome anorexia later this year, but that might never be reported by any reliable source. We could continue categorising the celebrity as having anorexia indefinitely. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we add a description to the cat, or reword it, then it would be for people who have been diagnosed with it - regardless of whether they still have it, have recovered, have died etc. If someone's criminal conviction has been spent or they've been pardoned for it, we don't remove the cat(s) in regard to that. Jim Michael (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's different with criminals, though, because a person who has committed murder is forever considered a "murderer", whereas diseases don't work that way. I don't think adding a description to the cat solves the problem, because most readers who see "People with anorexia nervosa" at the bottom of a page aren't going to click through to read the cat description. Changing the name to Category:People with anorexia nervosa or who have had anorexia nervosa or whatever would solve accuracy and BLP concerns. I'd still prefer deletion, though, because I have an additional lesser concern, which is that I doubt many uses of this category satisfy the defining characteristics test described at WP:COPDEF. I haven't worked through the category to confirm, though. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - While any problems with the category itself would be resolved by a move to Category:People diagnosed with anorexia nervosa, I'm worried that the category's usage is inevitably going to violate BLP policies. Looking over 10 of the articles in the category (out of 28 total), only 2 of those I reviewed satisfy the "defining characteristic" qualification. Given the stigma attached to anorexia, this strikes me as a serious concern.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:23, 5 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.
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. If re-nominating, might as well consider the decades sibling at the same time. – FayenaticLondon 13:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, it contains only a single subcategory and thus merely hinders navigation. Merging to the two other parents is not needed, the subcat is already in Category:Events by year and doesn't fit too well in the criminal justice category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: an alternative might be to upmerge Category:Crimes by year to Category:Crime by year, I'm neutral between the both solutions. The end result of the alternative is one letter less, it goes without the plural -s. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 1 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:Marshals of the Sejm of a Partitioned Poland[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. – FayenaticLondon 13:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a political category, so should be categorized by polity, not by period. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 13 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.
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: With all related articles are in an albums subcategory, this is an unnecessary layer of categorization per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment depends which way you look at it - just because editors have focused so far on his albums - the books, poetry and other articles and material are under-developed and potentially a considerable number of new arts are possible - if it gets deleted now, perhaps an alternative works by will be required instead... JarrahTree 09:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As long as those articles don't exist, neither category is appropriate. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without prejudice against the category being recreated if and when we get related articles which don't fall under the albums subcategory. Proper procedure is to create the articles which would populate a category before creating the category itself.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:30, 5 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.
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: The tag was deleted a little more than 5 years ago, so definitely no need for this maintenance category. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 01:44, 1 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.
