Category:Wikipedia articles needing reorganization from September 2008[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:procedural close, category has been deleted already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This empty maintenance category has been nominated for speedy deletion six years ago and hasn't been deleted in six years. It has been empty since 2012. See [1] for the last revision in 2012. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2018 (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:Wikipedia articles needing reorganization from September 2009[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:procedural close, category has been deleted already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This empty maintenance category has been nominated for speedy deletion six years ago and hasn't been deleted in six years. It has been empty since 2012. See [2] for the last revision in 2012. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2018 (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:Wikipedia articles needing reorganization from March 2010[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:procedural close, category has been deleted already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This empty maintenance category has been nominated for speedy deletion six years ago and hasn't been deleted in six years. It has been empty since 2012. See [3] for the last revision in 2012. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2018 (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:Wikipedia articles needing reorganization from May 2010[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:procedural close, category has been deleted already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This empty maintenance category has been nominated for speedy deletion six years ago and hasn't been deleted in six years. It has been empty since 2012. See [4] for the last revision in 2012. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2018 (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:Cleanup tagged articles with a reason field from October 2008[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:procedural close, category has been deleted already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This empty maintenance category has been nominated for speedy deletion six years ago and hasn't been deleted in six years. It has been empty since 2012. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2018 (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. – FayenaticLondon 09:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasonsCategory:Potential predatory journals was unsuitable. Every publisher is "potentially" a predatory publisher. Over time, The Royal Society could be hijacked by quacks. It's unlikely, sure, but not impossible. The category could be salvaged if "potentially" was dropped, and only included unquestionably predatory publishers (e.g. WASET), rather than ones with questionable publishing practices (e.g. Frontiers Media, MDPI), or if the inclusion criteria were made crystal-clear from in the category name (e.g. "Publishers listed on Beall's list", however the list is defunct and no longer updated, which makes it unsuitable in the long term).Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as in the previous CfD discussion: "predatory" remains a pejorative term if we say it without attribution, and "potential" is simply a WP:WEASEL term to fudge it. Perhaps at some time it will be possible to have a category of "Journals on X list", but until then this is just a run around the consensus of the previous discussion, and we would be better off just not having a category. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmanageable. Agree with Tryptofish and Headbomb. --Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above. Not a clearly sourced or defendable category. Jrfw51 (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussion. StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important category for documentation of a critical issue within publishing. Yes we do have sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that the "critical issue" tends towards WP:RGW. And either you have sufficient sources to rename the category as "journals listed by (name of source)", or you don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we could more explicitly attribute within the naming of the category. Deleting the category just barries a very real problem and thus make it easier for the harm caused by this practive to continue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, this is a category based on a list that was taken down, which is no longer maintained, and which conflates "questionable" publishers with "predatory" publishers. You can say what you want about the practices of Frontiers Media, they aren't in the same league as OMICS Publishing Group. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In addition, we can mention that a publisher is regarded as "probably predatory" in the articles on those publishers, using Beall's list as a source (it may have been taken down, but it is still available as a webarchive). I think that's actually more effective than putting such publishers in a category. --Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of a sourced statement within the article being more effective than a category is a very good one. Also, trying to deal with the harm caused by this practice is exactly what I meant about RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that the source referred to above is Beall's list or some derivative. I have published (yes, in a 'real' peer review journal) that Beall's list is 'easy to characterise as racism, xenophobia or colonialism, depending upon the lens one uses.' It is not a reliable source. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beal's list is by no means perfect, but you actually have to do quite a bit of mental gymnastic to characterize it as racist/xenophobic or colonialist. Had I reviewed your article, I would have rejected it on those grounds alone for such character assassination without strong footing to back it up, rejecting the blatant equivocation of "I said could be characterized as racist... I didn't said it was racist!". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely with Headbomb. Racist/xenophobic/colonialist??? You've got to be kidding. Any journal accepting this kind of stuff just tumbled down in my estimation. --Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2018 (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:2nd-millennium establishments in the Austrian Empire[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 WP:Smallcat. Will only ever contain 1 entry. Is not a current state. The "by decade" tree structure is just grand. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2018 (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:Establishments in the Austrian Empire by century[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 WP:Smallcat. Will only ever contain 1 entry. Is not a current state. The "by decade" tree structure is just grand. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2018 (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. – FayenaticLondon 09:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only three articles in this category and they are not very coherent. For example, Walter Map is in this category and mentioned in the Clerici vagantes article while he does not meet the definition of clerici vagantes and the term is not mentioned in his biographical article either. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Walter Map does not belong. A type of mass allegedly produced by such clergy and the main article are not enough to justify a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2018 (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: Empty category that has not been populated in a very long time. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As long as the template (which survived a 2008 TFD) exists and uses this category then this category should exist. DexDor(talk) 10:26, 23 June 2018 (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.
