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: Appears to be a racist category - at the very least, affording opportunities to make false/OR links (i.e. ones which should not be made except through reputable citations within relevant articles themselves), and quite unsuitable for a neutral/reputable encyclopaedia. Alfietucker (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The category currently suggests that any British-Pakistani gang is by definition a sex gang, which I don't see why that needs to be true. The "British-Pakistani gangs" category could easily fit in the general Pakistani gang category. The category under discussion is indeed unnecessary, inaccurate, and I would prefer if we could avoid such a category unless it's clearly a thing. ~Mable (chat) 20:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only one actually filled of those three is Indian sex gangs... Though "Indian sex gangs" is the only item in "Gangs from India", making the sub-category redundant. I agree that all sex gangs by country-categories should go and be upmerged when necessary. ~Mable (chat) 07:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Maplestrip. Doug Wellertalk 11:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem is actually Category:Sex gangs by country. The nationality of the gang members is not apparent from the articles. They are generally described as "of South Asian origin". Do we want categories of gangs by ethnicity? Or by location? Location is better evidenced and better defined. And on further investigation I find there are already categories Category:Gangs in the United Kingdom and Category:Pakistani-British gangs. Why do we need a separate category for sex gangs? Rathfelder (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the category was created and populated by GreenCricket (talk·contribs) [1] and emptied by the nominator Alfietucker (talk·contribs) [2] (except for the present sub-cat mentioned above). So was {{cat|Somali rape gangs)), so I am adding that to this nomination. – FayenaticLondon 20:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, Keep but not with this name, unless an adequate merge target can be identified. For those from other countries, it should perhaps be explained that there has been a series of scandals in England, where networks of men (mostly of Pakistani Muslim heritage, but not necessarily all such) have groomed teenaged girls, often those in the care of local authorities (being from broken or abusive homes), to engage in sexual activities with them or others. Effectively, the gangs are acting as pimps or ponces. This has led to a series of prosecutions in which the men have been jailed for significant terms. The young women who have been through this and given evidence against their abusers have been very brave. "Political correctness" has led to a tendency to underplay the ethnicity of the culprits. In a similar way, there was a storm some years ago, when a police chief said that most robbers (defined as theft with violence) in London were of West Indian heritage. The whole business is uncomfortable for more affluent white British society (and the police and social services) who for far too long wanted to brush the issue under the carpet. I have theories of my own about the cause of this abominable phenomenon, in terms of the attitude of Muslims to women, and false beliefs about the morals of non-Muslim women, but those views would be my own WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the British-Pakistani category in sex gangs. All four of the entries are sex gangs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2016 (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:Fictional United States federal judges[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/upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C1, unpopulated categories, and WP:OCLOCATION.
The only thing in the federal category is one redirect to a John Grisham novel that includes a federal judge. This doesn't aid navigation at all. The broader United States category only contains two articles and the parent category is not very large so it's not diffusing. No objection to recreating either categorylater if we can get up to 5 or so articles.- RevelationDirect (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments given: The category is essentially unpopulated and its parents category is already so small that it needs no even smaller child categories. ~Mable (chat) 07:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral with regards to the upmerge. I don't have much of an opinion when a category is occupied by two articles. ~Mable (chat) 16:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge per nom. Overly specific and too few potential examples. postdlf (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Fictional judges, and perhaps a fictional US people category. The two between them have two articles and a redirect: not enough for a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2016 (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:United States Supreme Court patent case law[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. We shouldn't be intersecting court with subject area like this for the reasons given above. It's generally bad for category navigation to intersect two separate facts at the most specific level, which makes it harder for readers to find articles and causes uneven fragmentation. Instead we should only intersect the specific (legal area) with the more general (country, not court). postdlf (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a big difference in weight of authority between decisions of the Supreme Court and decisions of a lower court, and that's a defining characteristic worthy of categorization. This is a little attenuated in the case of patent law (where the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, since 1982 has been the designated court of appeal, unlike most other areas of law), but still very real.
I agree with RevelationDirect that there's no benefit to building out specific regional-ciruit categories; this would probably be true in any topical area, but is especially true for patent law, where current appellate jurisdiction is solely to the Federal Circuit.
I have no strong opinions on the naming of the redlinked categories above, but I think they have real navigational and categorical value. TJRC (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick postscript: based on a quick sampling of the articles in Category:United States patent case law, I'd estimate that about 70-75% of them are Supreme Court, 20-25% appellate (usually CAFC), and about 5% other. TJRC (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That matches what I'm seeing; the larger majority are Supreme Court level because of the weight of their authority. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the subject category can get a population of more than two articles by the time this comes to be closed, we should upmerge. If it is adequately populated, as TJRC suggests that it can be, then of course we could keep it. Patent cases will be decided on different points of law, so that the highest authority on a particular issue may be at any one of a number of levels. I am not from US, but UK similarly has a variety of courts, so that do n ot feel disqualified form commenting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TJRC and I disagree on this category but we agree there is absolutely no WP:SMALLCAT issue here; in fact this category could largely empty the parent category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right; I don't think there's a WP:SMALLCAT issue here. And I was probably in too much of a hurry when I made my "quick postscript" above. My badly-expressed implication is that it's probably not worth the categories other than for the Supreme Court cases and Court of Appeals cases; anything else could go into the parent.
And reflecting further on it, I don't think we'll see many Wikipedia-worthy articled on cases from district courts and the PTAB. If a case is sufficiently important, it gets appealed; in fact, the effect of the appeal is likely what makes it get the coverage in third-party sources that makes it notable.
And just for clarity, I would not support building out topical areas of law by circuit. That would be of limited value and would be less useful to readers.
But I continue to maintain that there is a very important distinction between Supreme Court cases and non-Supreme Court cases, in patent law and elsewhere, and that that difference is a defining characteristic, and should be categorically maintained.
Can the proponents of the upmerge explain why they think it's not a defining characteristic per WP:CATDEF? TJRC (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TJRC:Reply Of course I think the Supreme Court is centrally important and that's why every single on of those cases is already in Category:United States Supreme Court cases or a subcategory. The American case law tree is broken into three hierarchies: by court, by topic, and by year. The question here from my perspective is "Should those first two high-level subdivisions be collapsed into one?". RevelationDirect (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2016 (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.
