Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 15

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion | Log
< December 14 December 16 >

December 15

edit

Pro-choice and pro-life celebrities

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (so keep) K1Bond007 21:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Pro-life celebrities and Category:Pro-choice celebrities: If the views of these people play a role in their public presence, then put them in something like Category:Pro-life activists or Category:Pro-choice activists. But having a category for celebrities (which in itself is an annoying buzzword) with opinion X who are not celebrities because of that opinion is unencyclopedic fancruft. If it really should be on wikipedia, then perhaps as a list, but not as a category. Aecis praatpaal 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hope the closing admin will take note of User:Pitchka's voter canvassing by talk page spamming. Aecis praatpaal 09:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my view this is getting out of hand. Pitchka notified some 50+ people who had identified themselves as Roman Catholics in a clear attempt to sabotage any attempt to determine Wikipedia consensus. I have no personal opinion on these categories, but if they are to be deleted this cannot be determined by consulting people selected on the basis of their religion. Wikipedia has no religion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP both of these categories are important, and I believe they have already been nominated in the past with the decision to keep. Chooserr 23:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where I was in early September? I was out stub sorting. I indeed didn't vote in that AfD, for the simple reason that I didn't know that it was going on. Now why should that matter in this CfD? This CfD is about these categories, not about those lists. Also note that I didn't suggest anything, like I've said to Jdavidb. I never said this should be listified. I said that perhaps it might be list material, but definitely not category material. Let me tell you why I want to see this deleted. I came across this category via Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong is notable as an American cyclist who has won the Tour de France after surviving testicular cancer (in Armstrong's case, cancer plays an important role in his career, life and works). This means that he should be categorized as an American cyclist, as a Tour de France winner and as a cancer survivor. It is completely irrelevant to his presence in the public domain that he is pro-choice. Perhaps it could be mentioned as a factoid on his article, but it is no basis for categorization until he actually starts a pro-choice campaign. And in that case, he belongs in Category:Pro-choice activists, not Category:Pro-choice celebrities. In other words: if these people are notable for their views, then they should be in an appropriate category, but simply being celebrity X with opinion Y is no ground for notability. Aecis praatpaal 09:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to clarify that I never intended to suggest this was a bad-faith nomination. I understand that Aecis was out elsewhere, doing good work. Some of us only stumble across CFD once a month (like me) or once a year. Nothing's wrong with the fact that it was nominated, but Wikipedia does have the precedent that after something's been nominated for deletion it shouldn't be discussed again immediately. For that reason, I think any administrator viewing this at the close of discussion should recognize that the previous nomination was no consensus. It looks like this one will be, as well. Seems like if this is to continue through the normal discussion period that each participant in the previous CFDs ought to be notified. Jdavidb(talk • contribs) 23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral If you can prove that their stance on abortion plays a part in their image (and this is mentioned in their respective article), keep it. If not, delete it, or drastically change the list. Mred64 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral As per Mred64 -- Chanlord 04:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Celebreties are notible for the causes they speak out for and against. — Eoghanacht talk 14:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aecis. This category is essentially "Celebrities who happen to be Pro-whichever", which is completely unencyclopedic. Categories for activists or lobbyists would be more appropriate. siafu 15:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/trim list per Mred64 -- getcrunkjuice 20:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to administrators: check the user pages and recent contributions for User:Pitchka, User:Chooserr and other keep voters. There appears to be a pro-life faction at Wikipedia colluding to alter the consensus on certain discussions. Also check the recent votes on Gay rights in Iraq AfD where several voters attacked the article for alleged NPOV problems not actually present in the article, apparently having read only each other's opinions and not the acutal subject. This included Pitchka's statement "Homosexuals are non-notable in themselves. Just because they have a world agenda to make what they have to say important they are an irrelavant minority that has nothing of merit to say as a group to the world, a country, a state, a grade school, or even a street corner." The actual article does not advocate homosexuality: it's a dry discussion of Iraqi law. There may be a need to monitor certain editors for push voting. User histories reveal a concerted effort to pad the Category:Pro-life celebrities with celebrities whose views on abortion are ambiguous. Whatever one's personal convictions may be, this is no way for editors to behave. Therefore Strong delete on the present discussion for political activism. Durova 20:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're unfairly lumping all keep voters together based on contibutions of a few. Besides, your findings have absolutely nothing to do with the merit of the categories. --Elliskev 21:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Noone is lumping all keep voters together. But this doesn't change the fact that there is a structured and organized campaign going on to fix and skew this vote, which is something that needs to be monitored, as it bends wikipedia content to meet religious povs. Aecis praatpaal 21:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. To clarify, many participants on both sides act in good faith. I do urge the administrators to investigate for patterns of deliberate push voting. My example from the other discussion illustrates that those people may not even be reading the relevant material. Durova 21:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just concerned as someone who is pro-life. It bothers me that my opinion may be subject to scrutiny that presupposes an agenda. I just ask that these types of allegations be examined carefully. --Elliskev 21:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of lumping together keep voters: I just noticed that of the 14 keep votes currently cast, thirteen are from users who cast their vote here after Pitchka left a note on their talk page. The only one who didn't vote here after having been contacted by Pitchka is Pitchka himself.... Aecis praatpaal 00:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Update: two more keep votes: One from Hégésippe Cormier, who was informed of this cfd by Pitchka, and a provisional keep from Christopher Parham, who wasn't notified of this cfd. 10:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that he chose well. What I mean is that the 13 people that were notified and voted obviously have an interest in the Pro-life/Pro-choice subject. There's no reason to think that there is a wikimovement to sway the POV of Wikipedia. It's just that he contacted people that he thought would be interested in voting. I, for one, don't remember having any other contatct with the editor that notified me. My guess is that he noticed my categorization as Pro-Life. Again, he chose well. I do have an opinion as to the merit of these categories. I don't want this to turn into something it isn't. I honestly think that your concerns are in good faith, and understandable. I just and don't think that the agenda exist. --Elliskev 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he obviously noticed your categorization as a pro-lifer, because he said on your talk page "Hi, I see that you are listed as a Pro-Life Wikipedian." It doesn't get much more obvious than that. You also say that he "contacted people that he thought would be interested in voting." I can imagine that not only pro-life wikipedians are interested in this cfd. I can imagine that pro-choice wikipedians might also want to vote here. Why weren't they contacted? Because he wasn't sure they were gonna vote his way? Now as to the agenda: I'm not a conspiracy thinker. What I do note however is an organized campaign, a concerted effort, by (most prominently) Pitchka and Chooserr to stop us "abortion zealots" (which in itself is funny enough, because I, the nominator, am pro-life) from doing whatever it is that we seem to have in mind. They are using the credibility wikipedia has amassed throughout the years to promote and push their religious pov's. Aecis praatpaal 00:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should state that my personal view on abortion in no way affects my votes on deletion nominations. Anyone who checks my history will see that I am scrupulous on this matter. My private opinion is just that: private. Here I act as an editor. Durova 01:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I do see where you are coming from, and I guess I kind of strayed. I have no idea of the motives of others. My main concern is the ascribing of motive to those who reponded to the notice of the CfD. I guess I don't really have anything else to add here that would be helpful (if anything that I have already added was helpful, which could be debated). However, my vote to keep stands. Thanks for hearing me out and feel free to respond on my talk page. --Elliskev 01:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "the ascribing of motive to those who reponded to the notice of the CfD": I stand by what I said on WP:AN/I: "Technically speaking, these users are not meat puppets. These are all decent and appreciated contributors. However, it's safe to say that their joining the cfd was a result of a deliberate canvassing by Pitchka. Since Chooserr has done the same with an AfD, this behaviour cannot be viewed as isolated acts. This is a clear pattern to influence the outcome of votes." Aecis praatpaal 01:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Respecting the above comment, my request for administrator oversight referred to the possibility that more than two editors might be canvassing for votes. I wouldn't hold it against anyone for responding to a comment on their own talk page. Leaving umpteen identical messages on umpteen talk pages in hopes of swaying a discussion - that violates my sense of good faith. Durova 03:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For anyone interested, my notice to this VfD only mentioned that Pro-Life Celebrities was being deleted. There was no mention of Pro-Choice Celebrities being deleted in it. I also found this on other user pages as well. Omitting that changes the context. When both categories are up here, it is neutral. The message on my talk page made it seem (or at least to me) that it was some POV delete. Mred64 06:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel I must comment. Aecis is starting a campaign against me. I should be investigated for letting people know that these categories were up for deletion. Do I even believe what I am hearing? Is there something wrong with letting people know that an article is up for deletion. Again, mind you? Aecis seems to be a radical in that "he" has been smearing and lying about my actions on other pages as well. Because I don't think that Homosexual issues are relevant for the majority of people around the world I am being labeled biased. Aecis is telling people that I told people how to vote on another deletion page. This is not true. I have received messages on my talk page letting me know that something is up for a vote. I was happy to hear about it in several cases. If I had not gotten a message I may not have known. I never told people how to vote! Aecis is on a campaign to change every reference to BC and AD in Wikipedia. Against policy from what I understand. If an article was started using AD and BC they are suppose to be kept that way. Apparantly the reason he wants to change the most commonly used dating system that has been used for over a thousand years is because of a great hatred toward Christianity. Because I and a few others are arguing this change, using Wiki's own rules, from BC to BCE Aecis is using these tactics to vilify me. Aecis is welcome to his opinion but to change the whole dating system against the Wikipedia rules to a less common system despite that evry encyclopedia I have sen uses BC and AD is a radical thing to do! I have not even attempted to change articles that were started using the remote BCE and CE dating. Religion has nothing to do with my being pro-life. Before I was a practicing Catholic I was pro-life it is an issue that I am very concerned about. This should not make me a monster. I guess because I am Christian is the real problem for some Wikipedians. Since all this stuff has occured another person has implied that I am User:Chooserrr because we have "disturbing similarities" and is asking for this to be checked out. The KGB is still active I guess! I have done nothing wrong and I'm tired of this deliberate smear campaign. As far as I know it is okay to let people know about a vote. Why are some people so afraid of people voting? Dwain 06:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured, I have not started a campaign against you, nor do I intend to do so. You shouldn't be investigated for informing people of this cfd. You should be investigated for spamming a large amount of carefully selected users with one-sided information (telling them that the pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion and omitting the pro-choice celebrities category that is up for deletion with it), hoping that they will influence the outcome of the vote to suit your religious pov's. In doing this, you are bending wikipedia content (what is kept and what is deleted) to suit your religious convictions. I'm more than willing to discuss the BC/BCE/AD/CE issue, but this is not the place, since that issue is not related to this cfd or the afd for gay rights in Iraq. Aecis praatpaal 09:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this user doesn't realize that if one votes on one category they are also voting for the other category. Why this user shouldn't realize this when he is the one who put these categories up for deletion is beyond me. How can I be putting my religious POV into this I voted to keep both the pro-choice and pro-life categories? Which religious POV is this user accusing me of? How is letting Wikipedias with a Catholic category tag know that a category is up for deletion considered anything then what it was giving people information of something I thought they might be interested in? My actions were not malicious I told no-one how to vote. Many Catholics are pro-choice, in fact, these Catholics may also be interested in voting on these categories. I am wholly offended that my religion is being dragged into all these debates concerning me. I have done nothing wrong, I had no idea how any of the people I contacted would vote. Why is it wrong to alert people that a vote that they might be interested in is up for deletion? It's funny that this user is so afraid of people actually voting on these categories. The more people who vote the better! Why is this user so upset that people are actually voting on these two categories from both sides of the issue? It must say something! Peace and Merry Christmas to all!!!Dwain 03:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You claim you didn't tell anyone how to vote. What you do not mention is the one-sided notice you left on dozens of talk pages. You carefully selected the users you notified as "Pro-Life Wikipedians" or "Roman Catholic Wikipedians." You deliberately misrepresented the cfd by telling these users that "the abortion zealots don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life." This is an explicit request to stop "abortion zealots" from obscuring information, which is a request to vote to keep the categories. You told the last 20-odd users that you "think this is an interesting and worth while category. Afterall not all celebrities are pro-abortion," which is another request to vote to keep the category (although not as blatantly as the previous notice). You carefully selected and canvassed a group of users who you believed would vote your way. You "hijacked" the talk page system to create a coalition to keep the category. You deliberately misinformed the users of the cfd. You skewed the vote. There is informing users, and spamming. These users had no relation to either the nominated categories or the articles in them. You selected them as pro-lifers or Roman catholics. You selected them hoping they would change the outcome of the vote, and indeed they have. It's safe to say that without your notices, this cfd would have ended in an overwhelming consensus to delete. Chooserr did the same on two AfD's (Gay rights in Iraq and Student LifeNet), which shows that it's no isolated behaviour. I'm not afraid of voting at all, my beef is with your talk page spamming, with the notices you spammed and with the resulting vote skewing. For the rest, I would like to refer to the notice I left on WP:AN/I|WP:AN/I], because it says all I want to say. Aecis praatpaal 12:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are valid categories. --Shanedidona 23:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RENAME or DELETE, if this is a keep, it should be renamed "Anti-Abortion ..." because some of the people who oppose abortion support the death penalty, clearly not a pro-life stance. 132.205.44.134
  • Comment - It occurs to me that Category:Pro-life activists and Category:Pro-choice activists are entirely appropriate, and should exist, regardless of whether we keep the two in question here. An activist is not necessarily a celebrity, and obviously, vice-versa. Once those categories exist, and expand to include those celebrities whose stances on the issue play a role in their celebrity status, then it will make much more sense to bring these categories for deletion, on grounds of their being redundant, if they turn out to be so. At this point, they're really not. (Not that lack of redundancy alone is sufficient reason to exist...) -GTBacchus(talk) 03:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Most of the articles with these category tags do not make any mention whatsoever of the subject's stance on the issue, thus they lack sources, thus they violate WP:NOR. Either find an appropriate source that clearly states each subject's view on the issue, or delete the categories. —Slicing (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on the issue of deletion, but rename to "anti-abortion". I think that the NPOV policy forbids repeating propaganda terms without a minimal critical distance -- not to mention clarity. Rama 06:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with prejudice A bunch of people whose only commonalities are a) they're famous, b) they have a similiar opinion on one specific political issue, unrelated to why they're famous. Looks like a back-door way to sneak in what amounts to celebrity endorsements. --Calton | Talk 14:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per most of the above delete votes. "Interesting to someone" does not always mean "encyclopedic". Promotes the attitude that a person's stance on abortion is always one of the most important things about them. I agree with the suggestion of Aecis and others to create activist categories instead. FreplySpang (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as has been said already, activist or lobbyist categories would be fine. JPD (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Pro-life celebrities and Category:Pro-choice celebrities, maybe with adding a short explanation in the first one (for example: "Category listing 'anti-abortionists' celebrities", or anything else). Everybody knows that "pro-life" does not mean "person who hates death penalty" but "person who hates abortion". Using "activists" would be bad, because a person may be a supporter of one of these ideologies without being an activist. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 18:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per nom. Unless they're also activists, I don't see how their politicial stances are notable simply because they're celebrities. Also agree with GTBacchus about the need for categories for activists, regardless of the outcome of this. --Mairi 19:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until an appropriate merge category is created. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inherent POV, trivia, not relevant to most people in the cat, and "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are euphemisms. Radiant_>|< 21:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify. Are we to have pro/anti categories for every issue in the world and every group of people? Arniep 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Wikipedia voted to delete the equivalent list here, any list created would be immediately deleted under WP:CSD. Do you have any suggestion for how to handle this in the event that your wish to listify is carried out? Jdavidb (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. It's beyond trivial to categorize every person by their own irrelevant preferences and characteristics. Knowing when and where they live(d) is necessary for context; knowing their political affilation is only important if the person is a politician, activist, or the like. -Sean Curtin 05:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From WP:CG: If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?, also from Wikipedia:Categorization of people: Try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person.". This is at best an incidental factoid about the people in these categories. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the people who voted delete above and cited mere opinion and verifiability as problems, would you have a problem with self-identified pro-life celebrity-activists and self-identified pro-choice celebrity-activists as categories? Does that cure the problem? patsw 06:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone already suggested anti abortion activists, this would be more appropriate, more easily defined and in some way notable. --Sachabrunel 20:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a category for people notable for their support for or opposition to either side of the abortion debate. I have a problem with a category linking notable people to either side of the debate if those notable people are not notable for their position on abortion. In the Category:Pro-choice celebrities, I've found only two people who can with some reason be categorized for their position on abortion: Arnold Schwarzenegger (who belongs in Category:Pro-choice politicians) and Jane Fonda, and I'm not 100% sure on the latter. How Christina Aguilera, Jennifer Aniston, Lance Armstrong, Fran Drescher and Kirsten Dunst (to name but a few) feel about abortion is irrelevant. There are a bit more relevant entries in Category:Pro-life celebrities, but e.g. Maya Angelou, James Caviezel, Mia Farrow Nick Lachey and Dolores O'Riordan are not among them. What I'm basically saying is that it's irrelevant how celebrities feel about abortion. They are not notable for it, and if they were, they shouldn't be in a celebrities category, but in an activists category. I believe self-identified pro-life celebrity-activists and self-identified pro-choice celebrity-activists are way too long and clumsy for category names, and they leave the celebrity issue. As I suggested in my nomination: if they are notable for their views on abortion, put them in Category:Pro-choice/pro-life activists. If they are not, don't categorize them on their views on abortion. Aecis praatpaal 21:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Horse care

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 21:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a confusing cross-over of other horse categories and these articles are well served by Category:Horse health which they are all within. Malcolm Morley 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nomination Malcolm Morley 07:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Manga_magazines

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 21:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, replaced by Category:Anime and manga magazines. —Philip N.✉ 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Condemned Prisoners

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep K1Bond007 04:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one article in this category, which would fit better in the parent category Category:Prisoners which will soon be merged into Category:Prisoners and detainees. NoSeptember talk 21:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Another histories

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all K1Bond007 06:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Histories of American states

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all. K1Bond007 06:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Bkwillwm 03:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Labor organizers to Category:Labor leaders

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (no merge/rename) K1Bond007 04:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The two categories are really synonymous in my opinion and all four of the subcategories of Labor organizers use "leaders" in their name. No real preference on may part as to which name is preferable, but the subcats would make a merge in this direction easier to do. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedia flamers

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. K1Bond007 06:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is completely and utterly useless. Who is it supposed to be for? I'm sure that whoever would want to enter their name here, could do so comfortably in one of our other user categories. Actually, it was created as a joke by a user and then placed the category on a different user's userpage (vandalism). It was not created by it's only member (if he's still there), it was created by someone else to mock him. Izehar (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Edward TJ Brown

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 21:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from how it was used (in the Gay rights in Iraq article) I think the creator was not fully aware of how Categories and articles interact. Doubtful that we need a category for Edward TJ Brown and it certainly wasn't needed in the article that it was a part of. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Unique scripts to Category:Monolingual writing systems

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (as last time) --Kbdank71 15:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Action agreed at CfD a long time ago, seemed to slip through the net... [1]) - FrancisTyers 17:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Pederastic deities

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete (so keep) K1Bond007 21:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from being entirely about attacking (ancient) greek religion, it is factually inaccurate. Most of the deities involved had relationships with individuals of the same age, or with youths. Some even had relationships with people who were older. See also Pederasty. --Victim of signature fascism 16:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -as above, plus POV and using inappropriate language. --Sachabrunel 17:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you asserting that 'pederastic' or 'deities' is inappropriate? And where's the POV? -Seth Mahoney 02:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The word 'pederastic' is inappropriate. You may as well say 'paedophile'. Applying such emotive and judgemental labels to fictional characters is both inapproprate and POV. This is the same argument as the 'Mohammed was a paedophile' slander. --Sachabrunel 15:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Pederastic" is a standard academic term. Next we'll be told that the word "homosexual" is "POV". And the Mohammed analogy is false and inappropriate. "Pedophile" was not a term either current with or employed by 7th c. Arabs, and child marriage was universal. "Pederasty," however, was a privileged cultural feature of those who dreamt up many of these deities. And it has now become a generic term, so it is employable outside the Greek arena, just like "homosexual" can be used of the Mayas or the penguins. Haiduc 23:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 17:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The contention above is incorrect on all counts. Description of the use to which these deities were put in Greek religion is supported by all mythographers who have treated this topic (see Graves, Bouffiere, Sergent, Calimach). The fact the some of these deities had other relationships is irrelevant, deities had many aspects and to claim one aspect is not to deny the others, to those familiar with Greek religion. The fact that some were the younger and others the older partners in pederastic myths makes them equally pederastic (it takes two to tango). This is not an attack, not meant as an attack, and any such claim needs to show in what way this is so. Haiduc 20:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same reasons as Haiduc. -- Samuel Wantman 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Haiduc. Ashibaka tock 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Haiduc. --Vizcarra 00:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irrelevant and nonsensical. Soltak | Talk 00:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not more of these. Rhollenton 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:U.S. detainees to Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename K1Bond007 21:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current category is wrongly named, and not explicit enough: there is a parent Category:American prisoners and detainees which covers normal prisoners, and there is an article Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States ready to use as the main article of the category. Ze miguel 16:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Railway stations in Vale of Glamorgan to Category:Railway stations in the Vale of Glamorgan

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep K1Bond007 21:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(grammar) Our Phellap 22:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Deadbeat dad

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. K1Bond007 06:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was "rename to Category:Deadbeat dads" but is now just a simple delete.

because I am sure that when User: Pedant made this cateogory, she planned to detect and list ALL such fathers who have failed to pay their ex-wives all of their scheduled child support, not just Rusty Harding . -- Emact 00:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Television movies

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to television films K1Bond007 22:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Television films Ze miguel 14:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was under the impression that "film" was the preferred term rather than "movie" for all cinema-related cats. If this is correct, then Category:Television movies should be merged into Category:Television films Valiantis 14:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Television films and delete Category:Television movies. The former is more concise and is more encyclopedic. -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 22:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--The Category:Television movies is well established while the Category:Television films has 2 entries. A tv show isn't considered cinema or film. I don't know any actor that says "I'm going to be in a Television Film" Troy34 01:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I don't have strong feelings about this (as long as only one category is kept), Category:Film subcategories overwhelmingly use film, and it would be nice to have something consistent. How about Category:Telefilms ? -- Ze miguel 13:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Television movie" is an Americanism. In other parts of the world, one would say "television film". I don't have a strong linguisto-nationalistic preference for "film" over "movie", but it is the established term for WP cats and should therefore be used consistently. In any case, what is released as a TV film in one country may be released cinematically in another - Spielberg's Duel is an example - so one cannot categorically state "a tv show isn't considered cinema or film". Valiantis 14:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was mainly going by Wikipedia when i made my choice for television movie over television film. As you can see if you click the links in the previous sentence, "television film" redirects to "television moive", so if you want to go with what is consistant with Wikipedia... the choice is clear.Troy34 22:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The television movie article needs a lot of work as currently it only mentions the US and doesn't refer even fleetingly to productions from other countries. (Articles in the German, French and Dutch WPs indicate that television films are produced in these three countries too). As the article shows systemic US bias I don't see it as a good basis on which to name a category. (BTW, the "parent" article movie redirects to film and the parent cat of Category:Television movies is Category:Films by type Valiantis 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • To call it a "US bias" is wrong. Here are some links to show you "movie" is an international term: England 1 & 2; Canada 1 & 2; Ireland 1 & 2; Australia 1 & 2. As you can see, both terms are used. I'm not particular as to which one we use and I agree with you that we should keep it consistent. If the German, French and Dutch call them telefilms, let those wikipedia language sites call them that. BUT, I personally take offence to your stereotyping me as pushing a "US bias" and I have shown you evidence to the contrary, however if you want a political discussion, we should take it elsewhere.Troy34 17:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • You appear to be very easily offended. I didn't state you were "pushing" bias. I said the article you refer to has systemic US bias and is therefore not the most useful resource for determining the correct title for the cat. TV movie is indeed used in the UK - however, it is generally used to refer to American TV movies. Films made for television from elsewhere in the world are generally referred to as television films. Film is the preferred term for film/movie cats on WP including the parebnt cat of Category:Television movies. Valiantis 14:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually it's very hard to offend me. My only point was that the term "movie" was widely used around the world, and in my research was even coined in England circa 1896. The links were to show you that it was not an "Americanism" or "US Bias". However, as I said before, it matters not to me which we use. My original argument was that "television films" had only 2 entries and to delete the category that had more entries was not preferred. But I also believe in consistency, so if film is more widely used then go with that. Troy34 16:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and merge Category:Television films to this category. Per Troy34. --Vizcarra 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Valiantis. siafu 16:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge Category:Television films to this category, TV movie is the commonly used term, I've never heard the phrase TV film. Arniep 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3,550,000 hits for "TV film" on Google, 2,850,000 for "TV movie". I don't claim that this is decisive (quite a few of these appear to be mishits along the lines of "TV/Film/Radio") but I think it demonstrates that both terms are commonly used. Valiantis 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that result is relevant, most of the results seem to be referring to films on TV (that originally had a cinematic release). Another term that is used is "made for tv". Arniep 17:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Google posting was not to indicate the relative distribution of both terms (I acknowledged in my original comment that many of the "TV film" hits were mishits). It was to demonstrate that such a term exists - as it does (which can be confirmed by checking a number of the articles Google points to). This was to counter your point that you had never heard the term TV film. Valiantis 14:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • if it was not relevant to the debate on this category why post it? Arniep 17:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • In my previous answer I didn't say "it was not relevant to the debate" - please desist from putting words into my mouth. I said it "was not to indicate the relative distribution of the two terms" but "to demonstrate that such a term exists" (widely). I said in my intial comment that I personally doubted the distribution of the terms was as per Google, so your first response was unnecessary as you were pointing out something I had already acknowledged. My argument is not that "TV film" is more common than "TV movie"; it is that "film" is the preferred term for all film-related cats and as the term "television film" exists and is widely used (addressing your point that you had never heard the phrase), there is no good reason not to prefer Category:Television films. Is that clear enough? Valiantis 14:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Television films" may be a phrase which is used but it is not generally used in the same context as "Television movies". It is used to describe any films shown on television that may or may not have had a cinematic release, not to describe a film or movie that was made for television only which is what the phrase "Television movie" is generally used for. Arniep 17:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. The main article is "film", not "movie", and neither term is overwhelmingly more common overall when discussing telefilms. -Sean Curtin 05:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. We're arguing this like it's a political debate on abortion. Who cares anymore.Troy34 21:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Eaton Family

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Rick Block (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is better handled through a list, and one already exists at Eaton Family. Moreover, there is already an Eaton's category ([2]), and the topic does not merit two separate categories, or even a subcategory for family members. Given the department store went bankrupt in 1999, multiple categories/subcategories is excessive. Delete. Skeezix1000 13:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:User Wikipedia/RC patroller

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Rick Block (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and redundant with Category:User Wikipedia/RC patrollers Ze miguel 10:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Soviet repression structures and people

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Rick Block (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR VOTE IS A SPIT INTO THE MEMORY OF VICTIMS OF SOVIET REPRESSIONS. For millions of deaths it was not POV. I will not allow you to destroy this work. Why don't you go and fight lists of sexual slang and pornography actress instead? Shame on you all. mikka (t) 08:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently POV category. - FrancisTyers 10:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Test Hat-trick to Category:Test hat-trick takers

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Rick Block (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we go down the unlikely route of having articles on individual hat-tricks, this category seems intended to include bowlers who have taken hat-tricks. JPD (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Death penalty to Category:Capital punishment

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Rick Block (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The correct legal term appears to be Capital punishment, which is the main article of the category. Ze miguel 09:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Pederastic lovers

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete (so keep) K1Bond007 21:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be nothing but recreation of Category:Historical pederastic relationships, deleted after a CfD. Yes, I am expecting the creator of the category to again accuse me of homophobia. No, I am not homophobic, but that's not what this is about; this is about an inherently POV category that has already gone through a CfD (during which the creator practically promised to circumvent discussion and recreate category). This abuse of process should not be tolerated. Delete (speedy if a quick consensus develops). (Its subcategory, Category:Pederastic deities does not appear to suffer from the same infirmity and I will not seek to delete it, but someone else is free to propose it if he/she wants to.) It should be further noted that this category was created on the same day that the CfD on the predecessor category was closed. --Nlu (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 30 for discussion on the prior CfD. --Nlu (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The creator (myself) did not "promise to circumvent discussion." Not being all that familiar with the CfD process, I brought into the forum a suggestion to rename made by another editor, in order to not do anything against the rules or their spirit. Since there was no consensus on re-naming at that time I waited for the process to run its course. Then I consulted with the admin who deleted it and asked him for the best course to set matters aright, appeal or repair of the flaws revealed in the CfD process, and his opinion was to repair the flaws.
  2. Flaw number one: the category was seen as badly named. Point conceded. The category was properly renamed.
  3. Flaw number two: the category was seen as POV. Without debating further an arguable point, I used verbatim the definition of a modern sexologist in order to substantiate the generic use of the term to describe homosexual relationships between male youths and adults.

I will not engage in personal diatribe with anyone here, least of all my accuser, whose statements in the previous discussion indict him better than I ever could. I will say that if you wish to delete this category again you will first have to demonstrate why gathering together historical examples of the primary form of homosexual expression in history is POV. Rather than deleting this category, two more categories need to be created, one for Category:Androphilic lovers and another Category:Gender variant lovers so that all three forms of homosexual expression can be covered. And I certainly hope that the rest of this discussion will keep to the standards of a discussion on the history of sexuality, rather than the uninformed outbursts of the last discussion. Haiduc 12:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The category name is now even more POV than the previous incarnation. I am convinced that you will never grasp the idea of NPOV with regard to these matters. (Specifically, the use of the word "lovers" is POV.) --Nlu (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term "pederast" is clearly pejorative in common usage, and the term "lovers" is rather POV as well (and quite vague). Identifying individuals for categorization is, however, better than "relationships" since the number of articles on relationships is quite small. siafu 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not pejorative in academic usage. The fact that this is not a popular subject is no excuse to delete the information. The contention that "lover" is POV is not intuitively obvious. Why do you say that? Haiduc 20:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, common names are preferred over technical or academic ones, hence "pederast" is a problematic term (it's most often used as an insult to mean "child molester"); this has nothing to do with popularity of the subject itself. As for "lovers", this term is not clearly defined by the more technical "sexual partners" and many would disagree that all sexual partners are "lovers". Simply put, many hold that "lovers" implies "love", which is inherently POV. siafu 20:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Using the same logic, I arrive at opposite conclusions. I agree that common names are preferable over jargon, which is why I rejected "Age-structured homosexual partners" which is a more technical, if less aesthetic, term. So it was the logic of seeking the simplest term that determined the choice of "Pederastic". As for the pejorative use of the term, that is simply one of many uses. The term is in wide academic use with no suggestion whatsoever of deprecation. As an analog, take Fascist. It is ceratainly a term of abuse. At the same time it is a neutral description of a political party, or an attitude. We may not like fascism very much, but that is not sufficient to make it POV. It is the context that determines the use. If you do not like "lovers" and taking into consideration that not all such relations are of a sexual nature (though they are all of an erotic nature) what would you suggest? Haiduc 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you're looking for a suggestion, then I would suggest that instead of repeating an action that has failed before, you take the matter over to Wikiproject Sexology and sexuality and try to gather a consensus on how to handle this topic from users who are declaredly proficient and interested. You seem obviously frustrated in what you've been doing so far, why not try a different approach? siafu 01:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for the lead, I was not aware of their existence (having worked mostly in the homosexual history field so far). That being said, I do not see this effort as "repeating an action failed before" but rather the offspring of the previous debate, incorporating whatever suggestions there were that could be incorporated. As it is becoming obvious, there is discomfort with anything related to "pederasty" because of its use on the street, but I do not think we need to indulge that - it is a projection, and out of place in academic discussion. If some (and I do not mean you) are uncomfortable with the pederasty of the ancients perhaps they should leave the topic to those who can be objective about it. I am not inventing pederasty here, nor am I promoting it. I am simply reporting it, after the fact. Despite what others may think, and despite some fulsome innuendo, I have no opinion on the value of pederastic relationships as a class. It is a meaningless question. Indeed, what is interesting is to see such relationships side by side and draw your own conclusions. So, challenge the examples, if you have an argument, but how can you deny the existence of a whole class of relationships?! Haiduc 02:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm fairly certain that there isn't anyone here denying the existence of pederasty. I would, however, point out that it would be much more appropriate to start by making Category:Pederasty and populating it with related topics before jumping to this level. I doubt there will ever be a clear consensus to keep a category of people with the terms "pederasty", "pederastic", or "pederasts", though, given its modern connotation. Given the fact that there do not seem to be any related categories for people for other so specific and/or unusual sexual practices, nor is there a category for heterosexual relationships between adults and youths or those who engage in them, it should be no surprise here that the most acceptable way to do it is not obvious-- it's new ground. siafu 02:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and academically studied, the category is legitimate. If the name is objectionable, suggest a rename. Having a name that is POV (if that is the case) is reason for a RENAME, and not a DELETE. If articles are being incorrectly added, they should be removed. Neither of these issues makes the category itself illegitimate. -- Samuel Wantman 20:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the reason why many voted for the deletion of Category:Historical pederastic relationships, was that it was "badly named". As uncomfortable as it is this is a valid topic of importance to historians. Not only PG-rated topics should be discussed. --Vizcarra 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I can tell all the issues with this category have been resolved. The only valid complaint now is that "pederasty" is too negative to be the name, but renaming to "notable age difference" or something is just weaselling around. Ashibaka tock 23:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important concept. CDThieme 00:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This nonsense has gone on long enough. Consensus has been reached relative to pederastic categories on several occasions. While I have no desire to speculate relative to the creator's reasons for his fixation with the topic, I can unequivocally state that this and other related categories are irrelevant, unnecessary, and utterly useless. Soltak | Talk 00:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to avoid use of the term 'lovers', which is not only POV but unnecessarily restrictive. -Seth Mahoney 02:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it is restricted to historical figures as the inclusion of any contemporary people could be libelous. Rhollenton 02:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not the greatest name (my doubts refer to "lovers" rather than "pederastic") but serviceable enough. The topic is entirely worthy of inclusion as a common-place form of relationship in former times. Valiantis 02:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was a common cultural practice in some societies (notably Hellenic), and therefore does not merit inclusion, in the same way we would not have special categories for people following common Western cultural practices. Sarge Baldy 19:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if this category were named "Greek pederastic lovers" it would be of value since we do not have that much information on particular individuals and where we do it will be of interest to those researching this topic. However, the scope of possible entries ranges far beyond ancient Greece, even to places where it was rare or rarely documented, and the sum total can become a data base of such relationships all over the world, something unavailable anywhere at the present time. Haiduc 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess there's no pleasing some people. The facts are that there many articles about couples, predominantly historical, due to the social constructs of today, who were in homosexual relationships with a notable age difference. Those relationships are not going to go away. Now, it seems reasonable that there should be a category for these couples. It seems to me (but I might be wrong) that the issues result from a POV dispute over the name of the category. But that's no reason to delete the category; a discussion can be opened in a variety of places to try and come up with a name. I don't think that there can be any legitimate objection to the category itself; as I said earlier, you can't disagree with the facts. Those couples existed, and they were commonplace relationships of the time, for the most part. If Category:Historical Pederastic Relationships doesn't work as a name, and ditto with Category:Pederastic Lovers, is Pederastic the issue? I am hard-pressed to come up with another word to describe these relationships; they were pederastic, and the consensus seems to be that we should limit it to historical ones. I dunno, Category:Historical Man-Boy Homosexual Relationships just doesn't have that ring to it... I think the CfD discussion should be closed and a discussion for the name opened. That's my two cents (but looking back on what I've written, it's probably worth at least a nickel ;-) ). Sputnikcccp 02:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This category is not for "couples", it's for individuals. There are not many articles about couples. siafu 03:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I mean by couples is that there are two people in a relationship. The articles are all about individuals, but they are in the category because those individuals had younger male lovers. If they hadn't, they wouldn't be there. Sputnikcccp 20:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speedy Delete: This is not a wikipedia quality article, has little content, and is repulsive in its very nature. Therefore I vote it a speedy delete. Chooserr 08:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is not "an article", it's a category. More to the point, "repulsion" is clearly POV. For example, I find homophobia repulsive, but I still believe that WP should have articles (and where appropriate categories) about homophobia. Valiantis 14:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply on the principal of stare decisis. I neither know nor care about most of the arguments above. But if I understand aright, this is basically a recreation of a deleted category under a different name, and thus an automatic delete. I had a category deleted, too; you have to let those things go. Let the editor make it into a list. Herostratus 12:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By this reasoning, any category initially rejected largely because it was improperly named cannot ever be submitted again under a corrected name, regardless of its merits. We might as well automate the system and be spared all this bother. Haiduc 12:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I am not sure this is the best name, I don't see that it should be deleted. Jonathunder 17:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:DC Comics heroes, non-superpowered

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Rick Block (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a "Musicians whose names begin with M" category. If start dividing them by powers or lack of, soon enough we'll have a ton of subcategories like "martial artists", "gadget users", etc. Its a bit excessive. -SA-

This sounds like a good idea. --Sachabrunel 16:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I found this dialogue illuminating: Category_talk:Superheroes. Publisher isn't quite like nationality in the Category:Sportspeople world, but it's close. So I think it might be useful for this parent category to have the kind of "martial artist" subcategories, so if you don't know the publisher, you have some meaningful reference point.--Mike Selinker 16:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:U.S. science and technology history to Category:History of science and technology in the United States

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename K1Bond007 06:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another one that should be renamed to remove the abbreviation. Sumahoy 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:California valleys to Category:Valleys of California

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename K1Bond007 06:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valleys of Foo standard, etc. jengod 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:History of the U.S. South to Category:History of the Southern United States

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename K1Bond007 06:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the bunch of categories that was nominated recently and almost the only one that didn't get changed. But the abbreviation is against policy and I don't think anyone voted to retain it, so I am renominating. This time I am suggesting that we use the same title as the article. Please, please, please don't stop it getting sorted with quibbles about the precise form this time guys. It can always be changed again later. For now how about we just make sure we lose the abbreviation (which looks worse now that most of the others have gone)? Sumahoy 00:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Yacht Clubs

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as empty category) --Nlu (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Yacht clubs" (lowercase "c") already exists. This was a category set up as a redirect. My problem with that the category-that-is-a-reidrect shows up as a confusing Subcategory in our user interface. -- 07:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_15&oldid=1122513419"