Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 16

< September 15	September 17 >

September 16[edit]

Category:Australian Go-Kart drivers[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The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Future members of this category are unlikely to be notable for go-kart driving. Alksub 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Nom withdrawn. --Alksub 20:59, 16 September 2007 (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:University of Oregon Football Head Coaches[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge.--Mike Selinker 03:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Oregon Ducks football coaches, convention of Category:College football coaches. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge Redundant. Katr67 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as noted above. --Esprqii 22:44, 21 September 2007 (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 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:University of Oregon football[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge.--Mike Selinker 03:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Oregon Ducks football, convention of Category:College football teams. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge Also redundant. Katr67 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as noted above. --Esprqii 22:44, 21 September 2007 (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 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:Articles lacking sources for chronology/history verification[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Superseded by Category:Articles lacking chronology/history sources in Template:Histref. Alksub 20:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Nom withdrawn. --Alksub 20:52, 16 September 2007 (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 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:Articles lacking historical references/verification[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete all. Kbdank71 14:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Superseded by Category:Articles lacking chronology/history sources in Template:Histref. Alksub 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other categories in this nomination:

Category:Articles lacking sources for chronology/history verification
Category:Articles verified in historical accuracy
Category:Articles waiting for historical references evaluation

--Alksub 20:53, 16 September 2007 (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 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:Cuban born naturalized italian athletes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge as nominated. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Italian athletes, a strange and narrow intersection of current citizenship, place of birth, naturalization status and occupation. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Way over the top; much too narrow. Xtifr _tälk 08:59, 23 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Eponymous musician categories - R[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each of the listed categories is limited to one or more (and in some cases none) of the subcats: albums; members; songs; along with in some cases the artist's article and rarely a discography. Per precedent this is overcategorization. Otto4711 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:48, 16 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Swiss people by place[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete/merge/rename as nominated. Kbdank71 15:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New tree system in Category:Swiss people by canton and Category:People by city in Switzerland.

Rename current cat who both contain the people from the city and the canton of the same name into People from the Canton of XXX, People form XXX (city).

Delete Category:People from Bern

Propose renaming Category:People from Fribourg to Category:People from Fribourg (city)

Propose renaming Category:People from the canton of Fribourg to Category:People from the Canton of Fribourg

Propose renaming Category:People from Zürich to Category:People from the Canton of Zürich

Propose renaming Category:People from Glarus to Category:People from the Canton of Glarus

Propose renaming Category:People from Neuchâtel to Category:People from the Canton of Neuchâtel

Propose renaming Category:People from Schaffhausen to Category:People from the Canton of Schaffhausen

Propose renaming Category:People from Solothurn to Category:People from the Canton of Solothurn

Propose renaming Category:People from St. Gallen to Category:People from the Canton of St. Gallen

Propose merge Category:People from Grisons and Category:People from Graubünden (same name in different language)

Propose renaming Category:People from Basel to Category:People from Basel (city) (there is Basel-country)

Nominator's rationale: The Cat tree for People by canton and by city should be spilt into two. Matthew_hk t c 17:52, 16 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

General officers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:General officers by nationality

Category:American general officers

Delete: Exactly the same as Category:Generals, Category:Generals by nationality and Category:American generals. "General" (when referring to the generic group of ranks as opposed to the specific rank) and "general officer" are completely synonymous. The creator has tried to include admirals and commodores in the categories, which is incorrect. The correct collective term for senior naval officers is Flag Officers or Officers of Flag Rank, not General Officers. -- Necrothesp 17:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all (in case of accidents) per nom. Johnbod 23:18, 17 September 2007 (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 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:Fake Doctors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Categorization by name; What else do Dr. Seuss and Dr. Dre have in common? See also discussion of November 14th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we could repurpose to cover people who have been convicted of practicing medicine without a license or people who have fraudulently claimed to have doctoral degrees (not necessarily just in medicine), but I tend to think that deletion is a better option—those other categories could be created with clearer names if they don't already exist. Xtifr _tälk 19:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as constituted — there's absolutely no valid encyclopedic reason for this. Xtifr's idea has merit, but if that's done the new category requires a better name. Bearcat 19:41, 19 September 2007 (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 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:Gimme More[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Gimme More is already a member of Category:Britney Spears songs. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the other article in the category (which is presumably why the category was created) is already in the eponymous Category:Britney Spears, which is where it belongs (if it survives its AfD). Xtifr _tälk 19:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 16 September 2007 (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 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:Gladiator Days: Anatomy of a Prison Murder[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 2002 HBO documentary, or Connvert to Gladiator Days: Anatomy of a Prison Murder. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly not the level of material needed for a category. May very well be notable enough for an article but the text as written smells like copyvio. Otto4711 18:14, 16 September 2007 (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 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 College of Law alumni[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. A brief check of Category:Alumni by university or college does indeed verify what User:Xtifr says, that "X alumni" does appear to be more widely used in the rest of the subcats. Any "for clarity and consistency" arguments should therefore prefer renaming the other UK subcats.. Kbdank71 14:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The College of Law alumni to Category:Alumni of the College of Law

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with the rest of Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom. Timrollpickering 16:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename for clarity and consistency Johnbod 23:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it does seem like "Alumni of X" is the convention for the parent category in this case, but it also seems to me that "X alumni" is more widely used in the rest of Wikipedia. Perhaps a broader discussion is in order? Xtifr _tälk 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename for clarity and consistency, indeed, as The College of Law is not an adjective, and 'of' is a short word.) (Should it perhaps be Category:Alumni of The College of Law, as The seems to be part of its title?) -- roundhouse0 01:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably better. Johnbod 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. "The" should not be capitalised per Wikipedia policy - it is doubtful whether most people would capitalise it in running text and, frankly, it looks weird. -- Necrothesp 08:43, 24 September 2007 (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 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:List of Cleveland, OH Boutiques[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge to Category:Companies based in Cleveland. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Cleveland, Ohio, poorly named single item category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Companies based in Cleveland although frankly it looks like the article should be deleted. But in case it survives put it in a specific subcat. Otto4711 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Companies based in Cleveland per Otto4711. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 20 September 2007 (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 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:Congregationalist clergy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 14:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Congregationalist clergy to Category:Congregationalist ministers

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with the other subcats of Category:Protestant ministers by denomination and because "minister" is the usual term for ordained Congregationalists. Google test: 342ghits for "congregationalist clergy", but 28,500 ghits for "congregationalist minister". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The correct equivalent ghits are 2240 for the plural form. I notice one of these (the theologian) was specifically banned as a minister by the Congregationalists. Generally I think "clergy" is the better term, as discussed before - ministers is, as here, often potentially ambiguous, and the parent "Category:Christian ministers" should be deleted for a number of reasons. The next leval down Category:Protestant ministers should also be renamed "clergy" - many such do not use the term. See comments by Roundhouse and myself at the recent Presbyterian debate here. The "consistency" argument falls down, as the case for renaming the parent seems overwhelming to me. We are stating at the wrong end of the tree! I note Category:Protestant ministers by denomination has no Anglican sub-cat. Would you want that called ministers also?Johnbod 15:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since clergy is both the singular and plural form, the correct comparison would be with the 32,200 ghits for "congregationalist ministers" OR "congregationalist minister". I think we are starting at the correct end of the tree, because "minister" is clearly the term overwhelmingly used for this denomination. I presume that the theologian referred to is Henry Allen, who was a minister until he was banned, so categorising him as a minister is quite appropriate.
  As to the Anglican church, minister is probably a highly inappropriate term, but in any case the Anglicans are a complex issue, best discussed separately, because the Anglican churches are ambiguous (and divided) about whether to regards themselves as protestant and/or reformed.
  I don't think that the term minister is ambiguous when qualified with a religious adjective: something "German ministers" could refer to govt or religious ministers, but there is little ambiguity of the adjective Presbyterian or Methodist or Baptist, or in this case Congregationalist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's news to me (and my dictionary) you could be be "a clergy"! Johnbod 14:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're right. "Congregationalist cleric", which is is the singular form, gets 4 ghits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass I agree with Johnbod that the Category:Christian ministers and Category:Protestant ministers by denomination are not well-named (Church of England clergy are not known as ministers AFAIK - rector, vicar, deacon, parson) and a consistency argument would probably suggest 'clergy' throughout. Category:Anglican priests doesn't seem ideal either. I have no preference either way for Congregationalist clergy/minister. -- roundhouse0 10:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the Anglicans, I don't see any alternative to a catch-all term like clergy. But as above, I'm not sure that it's viable to include Anglicans in a protestant category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet is it viable to leave them out? all the more reason to get rid of this unfortunate duplicate tree, riddled with problems, and link up these categories to Category:Clergy. I see btw that Minister (Christianity), from the same stable as this I think, defines the term "In Protestant churches" as "a member of the ordained clergy". Johnbod 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to nominate Category:Protestant ministers by denomination for upmerger, why not do so? But whether or not that category exists, ordained Congregationalists are still called ministers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 17 September 2007 (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 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:Bach Cantatas[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge in the direction proposed, retain Bach Cantatas as category redirect. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach, to match conventions of Category:Compositions by composer, Category:Symphonies by composer, and Category:Operas by composer. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave These are the same category, with a useful redirect. Do we need to do anything? Main name is Cat:BC which could be swopped to the other perhaps. Johnbod 14:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just planning ahead. Someday we might need Category:Cantatas by composer; If so, we'll want them all to match. -- Prove It ^(talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, alright then. Swop round, but keep the redirect, which is certainly the usual term for them. Johnbod 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regular redirects are a bad idea for categories. If kept (whether swapped or not), the redirect should be converted to a proper category redirect. Xtifr _tälk 19:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with keeping a category redirect. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whichever way round, but in either case keep a category redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, but keep a category redirect per johnbod; I think the "by JSB" name is both clearer and less ambiguous to a general audience, but the "common name" argument is at least strong enough to justify the redirect. Xtifr _tälk 00:29, 23 September 2007 (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 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:Acipenseridae[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 14:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Acipenseridae to Category:Sturgeons

Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories, using the common and scientific names for the family. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life#Categories, "When possible, these should use the common name in the plural." This means that Sturgeons should be the surviving category GRBerry 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to their respective articles, sturgeons are the genus Acipenser, while the Acipenseridae are a broader grouping. OTOH, every non-Acipenser fish in that family has "sturgeon" in its common name, so this could do with some clearing up. It might make more sense to rename both articles and delete this category. Alai 05:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article Sturgeon is in poor shape; in some ways waffling as to whether it is about the genus or the family. The categories are clearer; Category:Sturgeons explicitly says "The sturgeons are ray-finned fishes in family Acipenseridae (Acipenseriformes). This category contains articles on genera and species in this family." This description makes it clear that these two categories are redundant. There is a Category:Acipenser already, underneath Category:Acipenseridae. GRBerry 12:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I noticed that last (after the fact) so certainly there's duplication one way or the other. If the category page is "correct" (as to the predominant use of the term "sturgeon", then we should do as you propose, but ideally the article would be moved and made more in line with that scoping at the same time (or as near as is possible), otherwise the muddle is continued, or perhaps even worsened. I'll see if I can stir up some interest at WP:FISH. Alai 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 14:36, 16 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Actors by genre[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. I was going to delete these based on WP:OCAT, but User:Wisekwai had a very good argument about these being more like Musicians by genre.. Kbdank71 14:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - actors appear in any number of different film genres over the course of a career. This is a variation of performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 13:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to list I disagree. Many actors and actresses appeared in only westerns and spaghetti westerns or or strongly associated with it. An alterative would be to create lists such as List of Western film actors giving notes and film details to assert the important role and participation of that actor /aactress in the genre. Oh somebody has already done this - but I'd like to see it develop alphabetically with details. This way the cateogries can be deleted [[but I'd imagine the same sort of person who put these up for cfd would tag those too . I personally find these categories very useful in browsing articles of actors related to the western film genre but if the list can provide an encyclopedic altertative this would be ok. I am on the fence with the action film category though, primarily because we already have articles such as Action hero, or Tough guy which cover these people. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous comment, no reason to delete them. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the categories useful, especially in the case of the western actors. Rather than being a variation of "performers by performance", I see them as a variation of Category:Musicians by genre. A list would be less useful than these cats. — WiseKwai 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most musicians don't perform a dozen or more different styles of music. They aren't going to end up in dozens of different genre categories the way actors will. Otto4711 00:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not really overcatergorization and encyclopedic too. If anything, there should be more subcats. Lugnuts 16:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous comments, no reason to delete. IrishLass0128 16:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to delete, as laid out in the nomination, is that categorizing actors based on the kinds of movies they're in would quickly lead to dozens of categories being added to their articles. Take someone like Joan Crawford as an example. She was in one Western, Johnny Guitar. So she's a "Western film actor"? And over the course of her career she was in films of dozens of different genres, including but not limited to Comedy, Romantic comedy, Screwball comedy, Musical, Musical comedy, Drama, Film noir, Science fiction, Horror and plenty more. Does she really need dozens of categories for each genre and sub-genre? No. Otto4711 00:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Crawford should most CERTIANLY NOT be categorized here. We must set a clear guideline for the category which if you care to see I have now asserted. Such people who only ever appeared in one western or are known across many fields should definately not be in this category ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 08:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Here is the guidline: This category attempts to categorize the actors which appeared almost entirely in Western films or are strongly and not loosely associated with this genre throughout their career having appeared in several notable westerns. It should not attempt to list every actor who has ever appeared in a western film particularly those who have worked across a range of genres. Sorry but I find the western categories encyclopedic for linking together actors of the film genre. I don't see the point really in a list as decided before this is better done with categories. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 08:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC) The western film genre is quite distinct from other genres. Of course nobody would every expect to see Category:Drama film actors or something would we. Genres like drama, comedy, adventure, action, romance, musical etc are often interrelated. The only other category I would see as valid is Category:Horror film actors or Sci-Fi for actors who have only ever appeared primarily in horror films. These are more defined film genres which often have a cult following and are subjects in their own right. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 08:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be nice if categories could be limited in the way you suggest, but as a practical matter they can't be and won't be. As for your suggested limitation, who decides if an actor qualifies? What percentage of a person's career has to be Westerns for them to be a "Western film actor"? The scheme is in the long run unworkable. Otto4711 13:11, 22 September 2007 (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 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:Black fictional television characters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - redundant to Category:Fictional characters of Black African descent and its subcategories. If kept it needs a rename to conform with the existing category. Otto4711 12:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or rename to Category:Television characters of Black African descent (although it does seem to want to be Category:African-American television characters). -Sean Curtin 05:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Television characters of Black African descent per Sean Curtin. Many a dissertation written on these, I'm sure. Johnbod 23:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is already a category Category:Fictional African-Americans, this one is redundant.
Delete the catagory makes no sense in the fact that there is already a Fictional African-Americans catagory. I also found the mass redirect to this catagory inappropriate. It included characters that aren't "black" but rather creole, octoroon, quadroon, and mustee. African-American includes these catagories whereas "black" does not.CelticGreen 01:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And "of Black African descent" also does. Johnbod 17:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Television characters of Black African descent There are plenty of Black fictional television characters who are not in any sense African-American, eg those in the UK, W Indies, and indeed in Africa itself. -- roundhouse0 03:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a citation for that argument. CelticGreen 03:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you're suggesting that African-American actors take all the tv drama roles for black (etc etc) people, everywhere in the world? Johnbod 17:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Okaro, Chelsea Fox to name but 2, who appear to be black fictional TV characters but not in any sense American. We do need to consider whether a black African person goes into Category:People of Black African descent (this appears not to be the case, looking at that category) as many countries in Africa have TV programmes featuring local actors (playing fictional local people). Eg Keketso Semoko appears to be a black South African playing (presumably) a black south african in Isidingo (see here for evidence). -- roundhouse0 17:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any person that has ever appeared on television, that happens to be black? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:16, 23 September 2007 (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 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:Todd Rundgren[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Material is interlinked and appropriately categorized, does not warrant this category. Otto4711 12:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this does not meet the explicitly-narrow precedent hammered out as a compromise between deletionists and inclusionists. I believe that the articles on individuals should be removed from the category, but The Nazz and Utopia are both notable primarily for their association with Todd Rundgren (in fact, Utopia albums are generally considered to be Todd Rundgren albums). There may be interlinkage, but this also goes well beyond "small with no potential for growth", and I believe it meets the qualifications for eponymous categories. Xtifr _tälk 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't believe that the compromise applies to this category. It's still a category named after a person; it just happens that the person is a musician. Otto4711 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ample precedent IrishLass0128 16:55, 21 September 2007 (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 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:Diana Ross[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Category not warranted for the material (mostly articles about relatives). Otto4711 12:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ample precedent IrishLass0128 16:56, 21 September 2007 (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 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:Rihanna[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - everything is interlinked through text and template and appropriately otherwise categorized. Material doesn't warrant the category. Otto4711 12:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ample precedent IrishLass0128 16:56, 21 September 2007 (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 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:Rodriguez[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Material is appropriately linked and categorized elsewhere and doesn't warrant the category. Otto4711 12:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ample precedent IrishLass0128 16:56, 21 September 2007 (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 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:Sexual and gender prejudices[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. Not duplicate in intent to existing categories, serves a navigational/relational purpose, and overall a lack of consensus established to delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a duplicate category, because there already is a Category:Sexism. Wikipedia does not need both categories. Sefringle^Talk 06:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This category seems to be about prejudice on the basis of sexuality (LGBT issues) rather than prejudice on the basis of sex (sexism). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there also is a Category:Homophobia.Sefringle^Talk 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be a subcat of the one nominated for deletion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The rationale (original and expanded in comments) for deletion isn't logical. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicates the categories for sexism and homophobia, both of which can be housed under Category:Prejudices and cross-linked without this intermediate unnecessary step. Otto4711 12:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711 as an un-needed intermediate category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my !vote (see below). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Sexism. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There has been a very unfortunate rush to judgement here. There's a reason I always take the time to take a good look at categories -- including the articles that are in them, and the category structure they're embedded in -- before I make up my mind. In this case, the crucial -- but missing -- element was the parent categories. Since it was formerly (I've already taken care of this) only in Category:Prejudices, it evidently never occurred to anybody that Category:Sexual and gender prejudices serves as the natural and necessary link to the higher-level categories, Category:Gender, Category:Sexuality and society and Category:Sexual orientation and society. Without Category:Sexual and gender prejudices, there would be a big, fat gap in the category structure -- so I really hope folks will rethink their views on this after considering my comments. Cgingold 13:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was initially tempted to change my !vote to a "keep per Cgingold", but it seems to me that some of the parent categories are too narrow to be parents of this broad category e.g. this categ includes homophobia, and it's currently sub-categorised in a child of Category:Gender. Similarly it's mistaken to have misogyny in a category which is a child of Category:Sexual orientation and society. I can see a case for keeping the category, but not on the basis of the present confused parenting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. After reading BHG's remarks, I've given this whole complex issue another detailed review, and here's where I come out (no pun intended): I think it makes very good sense to bring sexual and gender prejudices together in one category, since they're so closely related. I understand your concern about using Category:Gender and Category:Sexual orientation and society as parent cats. I was thinking that readers would grasp that Category:Sexual and gender prejudices encompasses prejudices from both of those broad groupings, and would not be confused or bothered by the issue you're raising, BHG.

However, if other folks agree with you on that, I have no particular objection to removing those two parent cats. That would still leave us with Category:Prejudices and Category:Sexuality and society as parent cats, which don't present those sorts of issues. As things stand now, Category:Sexual and gender prejudices has two subcategories -- Category:Sexism and Category:Homophobia -- plus 17 articles, fully half of which do not belong in either of those subcats. Without this category, those articles would, at best, be left scattered amongst the contents of Category:Prejudices and Category:Sexuality and society. So I think Category:Sexual and gender prejudices serves a valuable function bringing those articles and subcats together in one place. Cgingold 15:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category currently contains the following articles: Androcentrism; Biphobia; Gynocentrism; Heteronormativity; Heterophobia; Heterosexism; Homonegativity; Homophobia; LGBT stereotypes; Lesbophobia; Misandry; Misogyny; Monosexism; Sexism; Sexual stereotyping; Sexualism; Transphobia. Which of these are you suggesting would not reside comfortably in one of the two subcats? Otto4711 15:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I evaluated each of the 17 articles under the definition/descriptions provided by the two main articles, Sexism and Homophobia. Some of them seem, at first glance, like they should go in one or the other of the two subcats. But careful comparison of those articles with the requirements for the categories caused me to conclude otherwise. By my reckoning, the following articles don't properly belong in either of those subcats: Biphobia, Heterophobia, Heterosexism, LGBT stereotypes, Monosexism, Sexual stereotyping, Sexualism, and Transphobia.

One of the articles, Homonegativity, is a special case: it generally seems to correspond to Category:Homophobia, but its authors were at great pains to distinguish it from Homophobia and did not see fit to place it in that category. In fact, it should be pointed out that the editors who wrote most or all of these articles are excruciatingly careful in their use of terminology, and I think it's a fair assumption that they were equally careful in terms of categorization. Unless I overlooked something, none of these 9 articles were put in either of the subcats we're talking about. Cgingold 23:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree that the articles you cite can't be housed in one or the other category with no need for this intermediate step. Otto4711 00:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Despite my reservations over the parent categories, I think that the arguments for a catch-all category to group these issues are persuasive. I would also add the fact that in many jurisdictions (e.g. in the UK and in North America) activism and public policy in this area frequently addresses many of these issues under an LGBT umbrella, so this is not merely a taxonomically convenient category; it's also a reflection of actual usage. I think that my pedantry above may have been missing the point: there are several possible solutions to the choice of parent category, and none of the difficulties are big enough to justify deleting a conceptually important category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 20 September 2007 (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 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 communities with African American majority populations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted because there is already a list of such cities. Gilliam 01:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep communities can mean more than jsut cities. It can mean neighborhoods, counties, states, countries, geographic regions, etc. So if there is a list of cities, it really isn't redundent.Sefringle^Talk 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are also NPOV problems with this category, as it appears to be pushing a racist POV. As WP is not a soapbox, I think it would be best to delete.- Gilliam 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it pushing a racist POV? What is racist about including places that have an African American majority? Sefringle^Talk 05:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't fathom how acknowledging the fact that a community has an African-American majority is "pushing a racist POV". Would you care to explain? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it's an example of overcategorization. Singling out localities that have been affected by white flight is not reallly necessary IMO.- Gilliam 05:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Prince George's County, Maryland, which is a suburbian county with a majority black population? That county hasn't experienced white flight. There are other exceptions as well; anywhere there is a majority black population, the category belongs. So your white flight arguement isn't universial. Besides, some cities which experienced white flight don't have an african american majority. Sefringle^Talk 05:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep (a) There are differences between a list and a category, and one or more of these ... may be appropriate in a given circumstance. (My emphasis) (b) As User:Sefringle wrote, this category includes communities such as Harlem, Ironbound, and the Lower Ninth Ward that are not cities. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per several above. Strawman arguments from nom. Category seems to be census-based and very notable. Johnbod 11:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what pray tell is the difference between a community that is 49.99% vs. 50.01% African American? nada, so why this category? Carlossuarez46 22:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, well sourced, and of value to researchers. Badagnani 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Badagnani. --Acntx 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & question - I'm having mixed feelings about this category. I don't have the slightest objection to it, in principle. Nor do I agree that it's preferable to have only lists or categories, but not both. And I'm not remotely persuaded by any of the other arguments for deletion. What always concerns me when I'm evaluating a category is: how useful is it for readers? Some people seem to be offended by categories that they feel are "too narrow", but I often find myself defending those kinds of categories because I find them to be very useful on account of that element of specificity.

In this case, I'm having a hard time seeing how such a gigantic, undifferentiated mass of articles would actually be useful and usable, in practical terms. I can't help feeling that it would be much more useful if the contents were broken down into subdivisions -- for instance, by state, to take the most obvious example. The List of U.S. communities with African American majority populations -- which does just that -- may leave out a small number of communities, but I'm not clear why they're not included -- and I don't see how the category is helpful in that regard, practically speaking. So here's my:

Question - I would really appreciate it if somebody would suggest or outline for me how a person might go about using this category as it currently exists. Cgingold 23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speaking specifically to the argument regarding the difference between 49.9 and 50.1. The United States Government makes the distinction in official records and that makes it signifigant. As stated previously it's well sourced and with well over 1000 entries it's clearly well used. CJ 22:14, 21 September 2007 (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 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:Anti-Zionists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is continually being added to articles of Australian politicians and journalists based on the wikipedian's view that this very libellous category is appropriate for the person. The whole category is just as bad as Category:Racists in being a POV magnet. It should be deleted, but if not a very strict definition needs to be formulated. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 00:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 17:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 17:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is nothing libellous about calling someone an anti-zionist, especially when so many people label themselves as such. It is not like Category:Racists at all. If you are having problems with people being labeled as anti-zionists, discuss it on the talk page and look for a compromise rather than nominating this category for deletion. Sefringle^Talk 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My read of Anti-Zionist suggests that the term is way, way too vague (and far too often negative and synonymous with "anti-Semitite") for this category to be safe to apply to bios of living people. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if kept, Rename to Category:People who have criticised Israel, which based on the sample of members I looked at, is all that can be justified to describe this group. See, for example, Jacqueline Rose, Norman Finkelstein or Ilan Pappé.Johnbod 11:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per other anti-X categories. As shown by the article Anti-Zionism, the concept is vague and disputed, and covers far too broad a range of meanings to be useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Anti-Zionism is a political fact and Anti-Zionists are real people. It is not libel to present the truth and it is not necessarily racist or Anti-Semitic. People of many kinds think Israel should not exist or should not do some of the things it does; likewise, people of many kinds think Israel should exist and what it does is just fine. WP does not hide actual controversy or use weasel words to cover it up. Hmains 16:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I doubt even nazis accept being called anti-semites, anti-zionists are quite proud of that position, especially when they themselves insist on differentiating between the two. While 'anti-semite' might be bordering on an OR description, 'anti-zionist' is a specific stnad against Zionism, no matter how vague and pervasive. --Shuki 18:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, its especially a POV magnet. Note, and also as per User:SMcCandlish and User:BrownHairedGirl: There is no single all-encompassing source for what "anti-Zionism" definitively truly is and hence there can be no definition of what an "anti-Zionist" is or is not! Some people are "anti-Zionists" simply because they are anti-semites, others may be Haredi Jews who await the Messiah or secular Jews who hate their Israeli brethren, others may be Arabs who are fighting a war to destroy Israel in the Middle East, and others may be far-off nations who have roots in older hatreds or may not know much about Jews and Israelis and jump upon any chance to besmirch them as they did during the Zionism and racism allegations in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 of 1975, so they become "anti-Zionists" and then there are some people who are simply evil or mentally disturbed and have chosen "anti-Zionism" as a form of venting their lunacy. All these prove that as things stand, this category is a hodge-podge that lacks any coherence and until such time as greater clarification can be established and become universally accepted, or at a minimum, win some agreement within even the Jewish people, this category should be scrapped, the same way that Category:Racists has been repeatedly scrapped, see [1] [2] [3] [4] IZAK 06:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see why it is less important or more problematic then Category:Anti-Zionism or for that matter category:Zionists. The rationale for deletion of this category, is questioning the merits and motives of those anti Zionist people. If we agree that the facts are true they are indeed an anti Zionist category around, and thanks for the honesty, it is very clear our own opinion about them. But I would like to urge caution in considering that just like we don't question all kinds of Zionist motives what drives their fever towards Zionism, and believe me there are just as varies and ludicrous as some do label here the Antis, Because we deal here as in any encyclopedia first and foremost with the facts, although the Zionists are a dying breed, they still deserve a category, but to suggest that the underlying motives should somehow make the category un-existing is nothing but wishful editorial censorship, this category is real and its out there we cannot deny it, and nor should we sacrifice our neutrality in this issue.--יודל 12:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This category is not very real, because anti-Zionism is not a single thing. There are some people who do describe themselves as anti-Zionists, but this category is also being used to accommodate people who don't assume that label. Once a category is defined to include "critics" of something, it becomes boundless, because just about everyone is critical in some degree of an ideology to which they subscribe.
  I quite agree that neutrality should not be sacrificed, so can the supporters of this category come up with a consensus definition of anti-Zionism? Without a clear definition, we don't have a category, we just have a pejoritative label. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would like to point out that in every category u will find people who will dislike their inclusion in it, as long as it has a one common denominator it is in fact a category, lets not apply here our editorial biases of what is their motives, because just like the category Zionists the motives can be ideological, intellectual, humanistic, spiritual, traditional, religious or racist. - but what binds them all is the strong extreme active and notable anti Zionism factor and role. If its an apple it is an apple we cannot change its name since some other fruit share its name. I would go case by case and take out every article i feel his Anti-Zionism role isn't a major factor in his life, out of the category, not kill the category, because some bad decisions went into some of its contents. Please consider that the category Zionists is just as loosely bunched up articles which i can go and find that they were not only about Zionism.--יודל 14:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Yes, there are anti-Zionists, but this category is hopelessly POV and potentially libelous in the case of WP:BLP. Describing critics of Israel as anti-Zionists is one step short of calling them self-hating Jews, another category (like racists) that has been abused and deleted repeatedly. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Only delete because of WP:BLP since it could and will be misused and abused. However I disagree that it's even close to calling one a self-hating Jew, since there are whole communities that are Jewish - in particular ultra orthodox Jews - and consider Zionist Jews as self-hating Jews.--Shmaltz 02:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of misuse is here, while he was anti Weizmann and his Zionist political views, or anti Mizrachi, he was not anti Yishuv and was for Colonies in Israel, as well as political government that should coexist with the arabs.--Shmaltz 03:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to be able to say keep: Many people admit to being anti-Zionists and would feel no disrespect at all--and if active about the issue feel treated wrongly if they were not so classified. All that would seem necessary to do is to police the category. But sampling 20 or so of the people there, I am not sure of any classification that combines Hafez al-Assad and Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld makes sense. We perhaps need some narrower distinctions: for example, '"Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists might make sense, DGG (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - I like this idea, and in fact I think this should be done, and there should be no other catetory for any other anti zionists as in most cases it's just redundant for antisemite.--Shmaltz 15:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That sounds great! whatever keeps this very controversial issue away from Australians who have just made passing comments criticising Israel. This really isn't a huge hot button issue here in Australia and does not consume people's lives the way it does elsewhere. There would be very very few people who would fit this cat in Aust once a proper definition has been set in place. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 06:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ill-defined, imprecise, inappropriate. Jheald 09:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete - In principle there should be such a category, for the simple and obvious reason that there are, in fact, people who are opposed to Zionism. That, in itself, is an entirely uncontroversial statement of fact. The problem, as I see it, is that there are, broadly speaking, two very different groupings of people who come under the heading of "anti-Zionist". One consists of people (including Jews) who, for a variety of reasons, have political and/or philosophical objections to Zionism. The other consists of people who have strongly antagonistic feelings about the very existence of Israel, either because it was created on formerly Arab/Muslim land which they want back, or out of sheer hatred for Jews. Now, I'm pretty sure that people in the second group couldn't care less about being lumped together in the same category with the first. But I'm afraid that an awful lot of people in the first group would insist on being distinguished from the second one. So, unless somebody can come up with a simple and clear set of categories that would accomplish that objective, I think we have no choice but to delete this. Cgingold 15:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The problem, Cgingold, is that there's a third group: those who support Israel but who are labelled anti-Zionists by Zionists who question their loyalty to, or support of, Israel. And because of this last group, this category can never be NPOV. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you, that is another serious concern. Cgingold 00:03, 22 September 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.