Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 4 December 6 >

December 5

[edit]

Category:American women company founders

[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: MERGE to both Category:Women company founders and Category:American company founders (and then DELETE Category:American women company founders). -Splash - tk 22:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similarly to Category:American female billionaires; There is already a well-populated category for Women company founders; also one for American company founders (both of which this category is a subcat). Why do we need Category:American women company founders? (NOTE:Creator of this cat is blocked as a suspected SP of User:Levineps, who is community sanctioned for issues related to unrestrained recategorization (among others -- see [1]). Dwpaul Talk 22:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now moot, as the subject category has been mass deleted along with others created by the banned editor. Dwpaul Talk 21:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the discussion is not moot. It turns out that this is one of a large number of categories where an admin simply deleted the category page, without either emptying or upmerging the category. All these categories need discussion.
See User_talk:Coffee#Cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice accusation, now come up with the evidence or retract your personal attack. Show us cites to lots of coverage of notable companies that define those companies by the gender of their founders, rather than merely mentioning the fact as no more than an "ah ha" like such-and-such company was founded in a garage, by college students, by veterans, or any number of trivialities we'd never categorize upon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came up with the evidence. They're called "articles" and they can be reached using the "links" I included above. They're from "newspapers" and "magazines", especially ones that cover business. These are what we in Wikipedia call reliable and verifiable sources. We're not discussing garages or looking at "mere mentions" either; these are all articles that make it rather clear that being a women who is a company founder is a strong defining characteristic of these individuals, which is why we have grouped them in a category, and the number of such women is large enough to justify breaking the global list down on a national basis. You seem to be blathering about how the companies are or aren't defined by being established by a woman and somehow demanding proof of that, but the category under discussion here is Category:American women company founders, not Category:American companies founded by women and no one is talking here about that imaginary category other than you. What is it about the fact that the real world finds sex to be a defining characteristic that seems to cause you so much confusion? Alansohn (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well I thought. No evidence, just talking about "evidence". Since you are unable to show that companies are defined by the sex of their founders in the "real world", you can do no better than maligning my point and me. It is the tactic of people whose arguments are essentially bull. And as to your parting line: the "real world" finds sex to be defining; if you believe that, please create and populate Category:American men company founders, since its so defining. I will assume your failure to do this shortly as further evidence that your comments above are merely drama. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three reliable and verifiable sources included above from major nationwide publications, all three of which demonstrate that the real world views women who create companies to be a defining characteristic, and I could provide hundreds and hundreds more. This is called "evidence", and there's no reason to provide more, both because these three are more than enough and because there is no number of sources that would disabuse you of the belief that all humans are exactly the same, without any characteristic that would allow them to be grouped or characterized in any meaningful fashion. There are plenty of people who espouse all sorts of lunatic fringe theories, but thankfully in Wikipedia the sources triumph over nonsense, at least often enough. Even if I believe that under the skin that black and white are alike, men and women are alike, gay and straight are alike, and that all other such characteristics are not even skin deep, the real world readily and systematically distinguishes and categorizes people by race, sex and sexual preference. I can assure you, based on analysis of published sources and on some of my most enjoyable original research, that there truly are major differences between men and women at and below skin depth, and vive la différence! As I don't see articles in the real world that show that being male is a defining characteristic for being a company founder, Category:American men company founders does not exist, nor do I see any reason to create it. The more you jam your fingers into your ears, shout nonsense and characterize the plain and simple evidence of reliable and verifiable sources as "bull", the less value that should be accorded to anything you say on this or any other subject, especially at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your articles show nothing about the defining nature of these women; just google "companies founded in a garage" and you'll find "reliable sources" for those, but that's just trivia, too. You apparently lack the common sense that just because an intersection is covered in media its defining for all intersecting items; perhaps we need to have Category:Garages in which companies were founded and other crap. Moreover, your statement about the lack of necessity of the obvious intersection category between sex and company founding is an admission that your statement about sex and company founding is a blatant falsehood of yours. Moreover, your ad hominem tirades when coupled with your tortured arguments and absence of facts to support them seems to indicate your position is solely your personal preferences, albeit with a nasty streak. Are you WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia or just insult other editors? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Recreate I don't understand the recent trend toward eliminating categories of gender. Area studies (Women's Studies, African-American Studies, Asian-American studies, etc.) demonstrate that it can be useful to look at the intersection of gender and, in this case, business. Are women found different kinds of companies than men? Are they different types of founders and CEOs? That is determined by looking at categories like this one. It really seems like CfD is sliding back into the 1970s as far as gender awareness goes.
  • upmerge to the two parents. The Category:American company founders category does not have enough diffusing sub-cats, so many articles will remain in the head. We don't need to divide this further by gender + nationality. Women company founders is sufficient here.
  • Upmerge to both Women and Amercan categories. Neither is so heavily populated as to need splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:American company founders and Category:Woman company founders. This is really a last rung category that violates the rules against last-rung categories. There is no good reason to sub-divide Category:Woman company founders by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2013 (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:Pogrom victims

[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: relisted at CFD 2013 December 20. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-entry category that is both too narrow and too broad. The current occupant is the only verified death in a particular pogrom but the name of the category implies there was only one pogrom. I have added the article to appropriate murder victim categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sadly, there has been more than one victim of a pogrom in history; they just all haven't been added yet to this category. Arguing for the deletiion of this category and moving the victim of blatant anti-Semitic violence resulting in the murder of a Holocaust survivor into Category:Polish murder victims and Category:People murdered in Poland trivializes the specific details of this and thousands more such murders over the course of history. Róża Berger was interned in the Auschwitz concentration camp and survived (!!!), only to be killed in a pogrom in Krakow shortly after being liberated and the war ending. Somehow Category:Polish murder victims and Category:People murdered in Poland just doesn't capture the nuance of Berger's murder in the rather distinct way that Category:Pogrom victims does. Deleting this category would make even less sense than deleting Category:Assassinated United States Presidents, simply because John F. Kennedy is already included Category:People murdered in Texas. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears this category has had only one member article, Róża Berger, since some time in 2007. The purpose of categories is not to "capture the nuance" of anything, nor to serve as a tribute to anyone or anything. It is to group some number of related articles in logical ways to make them more accessible and facilitate research on a concept. This category seems to be a failure in that regard. Either someone needs to commit to taking the time to research and add articles to this category, or it should be deleted/merged with another category. I suggest it should be deleted until such time as someone has compiled a list of candidate articles, at which time it can be recreated. Dwpaul Talk 03:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "Róża Berger" category was created during an edit war for the meaning of her killing by a communist soldier afraid of an ambush. She died because she refused to show herself from behind a closed door. Some Wikipedians argued (at another article) that it was not a pogrom while others insisted that it was, so the Category:Pogrom victims was created for her as a backdoor method of inserting an POV opinion. Poeticbent talk 05:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All three reasons of the nominator are flawed. First reason is a known non-reason: there is only one entry now, but there is room for many more. Second reason is too vague: "too narrow and too broad" is not one of the reasons for deletion that are known to me. The third reason is a reason to rename to "Victims of pogroms". But that would imply that they were victims of more than one pogrom, so in short I think the present name is best. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OC#SMALL is a well-established criterion for deletion. If there are legions of pogrom victims who suddenly acquire articles then the subject of the category can be revisited. No idea what you're on about regarding the rest of the nomination. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OC#SMALL is indeed a well-established criterion for deletion, but is legitimately used only in cases where it applies. Jerry, if you actually take look at WP:OC#SMALL, it does include the word "small" but then adds "...with no potential for growth". Unlike categories that "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members" (examples offered there are The Beatles' wives, Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor and Catalan-speaking countries), categories such as this one, which "have realistic potential for growth", are not targeted for deletion. Are you arguing that the number of articles for pogrom victims will never expand or do you have your own idiosyncratic reading of OC#SMALL that is both too narrow and too broad? Alansohn (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate -- Pogroms were a specific kind of anti-semetic violence in 19th century Russia (then ruling Poland). I do not think it was limited to Poland. It may be that is is underrepresented in WP bio-articles; if so, it is a deficiency that needs to be corrected, as I cannot believe that all victims were NN. Since this was something that the state acquiesced in (possibly even encouraged), it is particularly heinous; obviously not on the scale of the holocaust; but it is still worse than a normal murder. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2013 (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:The Elders (organization)

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All interlinked by the footer. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 5 December 2013 (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:American female billionaires

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is already a well-populated category for American billionaires; also one for Female billionaires (both of which this category is a subcat). Why do we need Category:American female billionaires (with only a single entry)? Dwpaul Talk 18:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The creator of this category (just today) was duly notified of this discussion, but has today been banned indefinitely as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Levineps, who is community sanctioned for issues related to unrestrained recategorization (among others -- see [2]). Dwpaul Talk 19:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now moot, as the subject category has been mass deleted along with others created by the banned editor. Dwpaul Talk 21:03, 6 December 2013 (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:Modern impact events

[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: rename to Category:Modern Earth impact events.
There is a consensus that the current name is inadequate, but less agreement on what to do about it. There seems to be a consensus that the category should be restricted to earth impact events, so I am closing with a renaming to clarify that scope.
However there is no consensus on whether the category should be restricted to the modern era (whether defined as [[modern history[[ or as the quaternary period of the geologic time scale). Editors may wish to open a further discussion on whether to broaden the category beyond the modern era (however defined), and this may be done without delay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are off-Earth impact events in the modern era with articles, so the name of this category is not clear, and not accurate, as it does not contain non-terrestrial events. The name as it is currently formulated would naturally include extraterrestrial events, but it does not. Indeed, our template, {{Modern impact events}} includes impact events that do not occur on Earth. -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why these are called hypothetical, but anyway, why is it a problem? Hypothetical could be a subcat of this one - also I see no need to categorize craters. What's so special about modern?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are hypotheses only, not real fact (as Chelyabinsk meteor). Mixing of different mode impact events (ancient with modern history) is not acceptable, imho. NickSt (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if you don't want to mix hypotheses with real impacts, just place as a subcategory. For any impacts that are confirmed, there is no reason to split between those that happened 500 years ago and those that happened 1000 years ago. We split by year when there are significant numbers, but here we only have a few dozen, so it's not worth splitting by time period.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2013 (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:Absent Friends (band)

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems like an unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OC#Eponymous because not only is everything within this category linked from Absent Friends (band), each of the articles within the subcategories links to every other one, since only one album of the band has an article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:52, 5 December 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_5&oldid=1136102823"