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.
Delete. The Lead Belly article has several inappropriate categories; the text mentions convictions for illegal weapon-carrying and for assault, but nothing related to murder, and yet we have categories for murder, parricide, and attempted murder. All three are inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of parricide per Meriam-Webster 'one that murders his or her father, mother, or a close relative'. So it is more than just parents. Lead Belly per his article did kill a relative, but how close that person was is not mentioned. In any case this category has just one entry and the parent category can cover this crime. I say Delete....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?10:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There was only one entry in the category Category:Important Bird Areas of Saint Helena. None of those articles related to anything which could be described as a park. I have a friend presently on St Helena. I get the impression that there isn't anywhere there which could be described as a park. Rathfelder (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: See WP:RDH#Category:Criticism of monotheism (permalink) for a discussion that's happened in the last 24 hours on this subject. Basically, this category appears to have too few articles to be useful as a category; out of its five articles, just two (Criticism of monotheism and a biography of a critic of monotheism) are actually criticisms of monotheism, while the other three articles are books that criticise religion in general, not just monotheism. I'm nominating this category merely because it seems to be too small, and as it's been tagged with {{popcat}} literally since its creation in 2008, I don't expect it to get a lot of additional articles any time soon.
Please note that some people in the WP:RDH believe that this is fundamentally an inappropriate category on WP:COATRACK grounds, a position that I don't hold; I'll let them explain their reasons more fully (otherwise I might distort their arguments), but basically I figure that we could have a category on this subject if we had enough articles. After all, we have an article on the subject, which contains some bits with criticism from polytheistic and atheistic perspectives (e.g. saying that monotheism is problematic because it leads to intolerance), and I don't agree that this is necessarily a coatrack.
If you want to argue for deletion, please say "Soft delete" or "Hard delete". Soft, my position, is that this category is problematic because it's too small, and therefore it should unquestionably be restored (see WP:REFUND) in the unlikely event that someone can find enough articles to put into it; while hard, the perspective of people arguing WP:COATRACK, is that it's not appropriate to have a category on this topic at all. Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if this is closed as delete, the closing admin needs to close it as "soft" or "hard" as well; a simple "delete" would be ambiguous and wouldn't help anyone. Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REname The main article is a very poor one. The category content is books arguing that there is no God. Category:Books promoting atheism might be a solution, with the criticism article as a main article. I believe in God, but I also do not believe in the caricature but up by some of these authors. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, cut out the main article and the critic of monotheism, and then rename? I hadn't thought of that idea. We already have Category:Books critical of religion; I think we could move the three books out of this category and into the other one, and then do a soft delete for lack of anti-monotheism articles. Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend—is WP:SOFTDELETE applicable here? I find "Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion sees very little discussion even after being relisted several times, the administrator can close the discussion as soft delete and delete the page."Bus stop (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. [Sorry if you know all this, but I want my reasoning to be straightforward] Basically, categories automatically get deleted (WP:CSD#C1) if they're emptied, and nobody will complain on process grounds if such a category is restored or recreated after articles are found to put into it. However, you're not supposed to go ahead and empty a category out of process; knowingly emptying this category wouldn't be appropriate. The basic idea is that I'm trying to get community consensus for emptying this category and then having it deleted in the spirit of C1, with the idea that if the category's recreated, or requested for WP:REFUND, nobody will object that this CFD means that it can't be refunded and/or that it's eligible for WP:CSD#G4 speedy deletion as a repost. I nearly never nominate categories for discussion on grounds of "this is too small to be viable", but if I did, I normally would use this kind of rationale. If a category is deleted solely because it can't have more than a tiny number of articles, and then later you demonstrate that there are actually a good number of articles that can go into it, refund or recreation should be uncontroversial; I'm just trying to ensure that that's the case here, should my view get consensus. Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I will change my opinion to "soft-delete". I was not aware of these intricacies. I don't see anything wrong with the Category, but its precarious state is related to two factors: minimal content, and the existence of the article by the same name—Criticism of monotheism—that can serve as a jumping-off point for the reader to find related articles. Bus stop (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is clear that I wouldn't object if articles existed to populate this category with. They don't, ergo the category should be deleted currently. If articles were to exist, the category would have a reason to be. They don't, so it doesn't. I'm not here to invent words or use invented words. Right now, there is no reason to have this category, as I abundantly explained. If the situation changes, the situation changes. --Jayron3221:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for recategorise I agree with only 4 items it's not useful. I'm only weakly supporting since I wonder if it's actually easy to expand. I guess we've established that criticising monotheism doesn't have to mean you support religion or polytheism. But I'd also like to support out that something could both criticise religion generally and monotheism in particular. Whether it would be useful to add a book to both IMO would have to be decided on a case by case basis. There would need to be sufficient criticism of monotheism in particular to justify it. (To give a similar example, something could be criticial of religion in general, but also criticise Islam or Christianity or whatever particularly.) Note this means there would need to be explicit criticism of monotheism rather than simply criticism of monotheistic religions. P.S. I'd note that Alan Moore is unlikely to belong in a book category Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a double negative; far too abstruse. Why have a category that would put Hinduism and New Atheism in one category, and leave us to argue whether Christianity is monotheistic, when Islam and Judaism usually argue it isn't? Basically, what is the purpose served by having this category? (Everything I do is hard, btw.) μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as others note above, all the items fit neatly into existing atheism categories without distinction, making this a subcontainer that could be populated with all members of one or more of those categories and vice versa, which in turn makes the category redundant clutter. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment except in the title, all else in the article simply refers to Grand Manan, without Island. Shouldn't the article title be renamed instead? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: 1900s means 1900-1909 across Wikipedia, and the parent of this category is Category:20th century. Renaming will mean January 1900-December 1900 will need to removed, and January 2000-December 2000 added. Tim! (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With 700+ articles (out of 1200 possible articles), the current contents could easily be subdivided by decade. Let's just create Category:Months of the 20th century as a parent for this one, and then we can migrate all the 1910-and-later months to their own decade subcategories. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but limit it to the decade (i.e. purge). 1900-09 will potentially have 120 articles, which is enough for a category. The purged items should go into their own decade categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend and Peterkingiron. I'm all in favor of keeping "months of the 1900s" as a subcategory of a new "Months of the 20th century", rather than renaming. There are enough of these now that we can have other subcats like "months of the 1910s", "months of the 1920s", etc. When the project started nearly 10 years ago, January 1900 to December 1900 were among the first articles, and although they were in the 1900s decade, they were in the 19th century rather than the 20th. Now that the project is preparing to complete its own first decade of existence, it's appropriate that it gets split into 10 subcats under the 20th century umbrella. Mandsford14:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: delete anachronistic categories. The content of these categories is completely unrelated to the Soviet Union, it is about the new states that emerged when the Soviet Union dissolved. This is follow-up on this and this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all This is a difficult one. USSR (and imperial Russia) were big enough to be a continent. Inevitably 70+ years have left their mark on all of the ex-Soviet states. Category:Communist parties in ex-Soviet states might do the trick. "State" is a purposely vague word to cover sovereign states, those like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea and Transnistriam whose position is ambivalent, also federating states of Russia, such as Tartaristan. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. As Peterkingiron said, 70+ years as part of the Soviet Union have deeply influenced all aspects of society. Even if Hinduism in Latvia (as a more exotic example) may largely be a post-Soviet phenomenon, the very fact that it is a rather new, minor phenomenon indeed has much to do with the fact that Latvia is an ex-Soviet country where spirituality has been largely confined to the traditional Christian denominations unless further marginalized. While cathcing up and developing their distinct cultures nowadays, former Soviet countries still have a whole historical era in common, largely out of touch with Western societies. Therefore, this grouping will remain to be highly relevant for at least the next 25 years. --PanchoS (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
comment aftermath is quite encompassing: perchance everything that happened everywhere after the dissolution is part of the aftermath - maybe even the election of the current US president. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The intention is to make it less encompassing: "Post-Soviet states" may contain everything in current former Soviet states, while aftermath of the dissolution it should at least be related to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific category, unlikely to ever have many members, only one page in it at present SJK (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
