Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 21 June 23 >

June 22[edit]

Category:Tamil film Heroines[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Tamil film Heroines to Category:Tamil actors
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Due to subjectivity and POV issues, we don't categorize actors as "heroes" or "heroines" of film. Just as actors, or film actors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to reflect the fact that heroine is a role played by an actor. It might be relevant to describe a role in a play or book as being a heroine and categorize on that basis, but for individuals it would be more meaningful to group them as actors. Alansohn (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - we don't categorize either real people or fictional characters as heroes (except in instances where "hero" is part of an official designation, i. e. Category:Heroes of the Soviet Union). Otto4711 (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2009 (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.

BAFTA actor award winners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming rationale Using Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners as the model, I believe these categories would benefit by being renamed to clarify that they are categories for people who won. This would then be a natural subcat of Category:BAFTA winners (people), I suppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:BAFTA Award for Best Actor to Category:Best Actor BAFTA Award winners
Category:BAFTA Award for Best Foreign Actor to Category:Best Foreign Actor BAFTA Award winners
Category:BAFTA Award for Best British Actor to Category:Best British Actor BAFTA Award winners
Relisting note: This proposal was intially listed on 2009 June 12 but was temporarily withdrawn pending the outcome of a related discussion. With the related discussion now resolved, this discussion may proceed. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for relisting this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2009 (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:Actor-politicians[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. I hate this after so long, but this is where the consensus, or lack of consensus lies. While I did ask a question in the discussion, I did not opine a direction so closing this should be OK, especially given the large open backlog. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actor-politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This nomination is a follow-up to the CFD of 4 March 2009, which ended with a "no consensus" result. I have attempted to build on the discussion in the past CFD and structured this nomination accordingly. I ask that participants in the discussion please keep in mind that the focus of this CFD discussion, as with almost all CFD discussions, is not whether this information should be present in Wikipedia, but rather whether a category is the appropriate means of conveying the information. A topic can very well be interesting or significant and still wholly inappropriate for a category. (Note: This nomination also includes Category:American actor-politicians and Category:Indian actor-politicians.)
Arguments against keeping the category
The main argument against keeping the category is that it constitutes overcategorization on the basis of a trivial intersection of attributes:

Avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated, even if some person can be found that has both traits. –quoted from Wikipedia:Overcategorization

In other words, while the two attributes of "actor" and "politician" are individually defining, the intersection of the two is not sufficiently defining to merit a unique category.
Another argument for deleting the category is the precedent of other discussions (for an explanation of why the precedent of other related discussions matters, see Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus). In March alone, five other double-occupation categories were deleted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), including two for politicians, as well as Category:People in multiple occupations, suggesting that there is not consensus support for establishing or maintaining a double-occupation categorization scheme in Wikipedia.
Arguments for keeping the category
The main counter-argument to deleting the category aims to challenge the assertion that this intersection of two occupations is a trivial one, noting that for those people in the category fame attained as an actor was a significant factor in their political success. This counter-argument overlooks at least two major issues:
  1. While a person's career as an actor can be a significant factor in their political career, it can also be—and often is—relatively trivial, depending on how successful the person was as an actor. When a characteristic is somewhat defining in some cases and non-defining in many others, then that characteristic is not a good basis for a category. In such a case, entries need to be annotated with descriptions, comments, and references to explain why or prove that the characteristic is defining for each person who is listed.
  2. By its own admission, this counter-argument admits that any significance that could be attributed to the intersection of "actor-politicians" does not come from the intersection of "actor" + "politician" itself but rather from that of "fame" + "politician". It is not the fact of being an actor that affects political careers, but rather the fact of being famous. And, in the end, it matters not what the source of fame is... To quote one of the participants in the discussion:

    There are a few actor-politicians for whom an acting career was a key part of their political development, but for most it is no more than one of the many ways in which an aspiring politician can start with a high profile: others enter politics after achieving notability in business, sport, the military, or whatever. This sort of largely-trivial-and-only-occasionally-defining intersection is best explore in a list or articled, and by category intersection (if or when it arrives). (emphasis added) –BrownHairedGirl, 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

An extension of the counter-argument is the claim that the relationship is significant—or more significant, depending one's perspective—in certain countries, with India, the Philippines, and the United States being offered as examples. Even if this assertion is accepted without question, it ultimately strengthens the case for listifying the categories. If there are major variations in the significance or defining-ness of an attribute across time and space, then that attribute is not a sound basis for categorization; instead, a list is needed to provide sourced context for each entry and explain why, how, and to what extent the attribute is significant for each person who is listed.
  • Listify to List of actor-politicians as nominator. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Firstly it is too soon to reopen this. None of the arguments above are at all impressive imo, but I won't go into them all again unless I have to. Articles are normally not linked to lists, so the connection is lost. Plus "listify" results here do not normally - alright, always - result in actual lists being created, so the nom is -- alright might be -in effect to delete (ok there is a lst in this case as pointed out below). The realization of this by editors is why "listify" decisions are now a real rarity here. Nb also that the category definitions have all been changed after the last discussion to match the American one, itself tightened. People must now be notable in each capacity, as with Category:Athlete-politicians (remind me again why that isn't trivial). Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What listify decisions have not resulted in lists being created? I will agree that a new article is not created in every case, but the list should exist, at least in an article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "the list should exist"? Is there one now, and if not, who will create it? Certainly not the closers or their bots. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in 90% of cases it is done by "the closers". If the consensus is to create a list, the category is not deleted until the list is made. It is placed in WP:CFD/W/M until this happens; anyone can create the lists when they are placed here. Much of the time no one bothers to do it, so it is indeed the closer who ends up doing it. I have done a fair number myself when I had no connection with the discussion apart from closing it. But the statement that "'listify' results here do not normally result in actual lists being created" is patently false. In this particular case the point is moot anyway since List of actor-politicians exists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is very laudable of you, but as I recall it emerged some time ago that other frequent closers did not do this (not that I'm saying they should). Only ONE of the 80-odd articles in the category links to the list (Sonny Bono), and without those links the grouping is lost for the vast majority of people seeing one of the articles. It is also much shorter at present.Johnbod (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you could point to a discussion in the past year that resulted in a "listify" where listification did not take place, I'd be interested in seeing it, and in correcting it. I don't believe that it is happened in all the time I have been participating in CFD, but if you could provide an actual example, we could certainly take steps to fix it ex post facto and make sure it doesn't happen again. Even if it does happen, the data is not lost because you can just check the bot contributions to find out what was in a category. It's not a big deal to do. In this case, the categories would be added to WP:CFD/W/M where the listification would be completed prior to deletion. Your complaint that listification is not a viable option because of administrative flaws in carrying it out is a red herring, really. Oppose something on the merits, but we don't need to resort to an argument based on "admins just can't (or won't) do it". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several arguments on the merits above. How will a list link these articles if only one links to it? Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno—maybe a "see also" could be added to the articles. (Or in the lede pipe link to the list when the person is referred to as an "actor and politician" rather than linking to actor and politician individually. I imagine there are a number of other creative ways that could be used.) My only bitch was with the other issue; your arguments on the merits may well be good ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"See also" is the normal way, but somebody has to do it. But I more or less agree with DGG below. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is a bot that can apparently listify categories (or so I have been informed), I suppose there must be a bot that can add a "see also" ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not simply a coincidental intersection; there is a direct and defining link between those people included in the category who have been able to use their notability as an actor as a stepping stone into politics, very often bypassing the working-your-way-up-from-the-precincts approach that most politicians follow, serving in Congress, as Governors of states and as President, in the United States, and this pattern has been replicated around the world. Helen Gahagan, who opposed Richard Nixon in a Congressional race, was described in this source as an "actress and Democratic Congresswoman". Ben L. Jones (best known for his role as Cooter Davenport in The Dukes of Hazzard) and Fred Grandy (who played purser Gopher on The Love Boat) were both minor celebrities who parlayed their primetime fame into seats in Congress. Probably the best example is Ronald Reagan, whose only elected office was at the helm of the Screen Actors Guild before being elected as Governor of California in 1966. There was certainly no consensus to delete and the clear references to actor-politicians demonstrate the defining nature of this dual career. Alansohn (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You said that "there is a direct and defining link between those people included in the category who have been able to use their notability as an actor as a stepping stone into politics". In other words, they used their fame as a stepping stone into politics. Is the same not true for fame acquired through other means besides acting? And, if so, then is the "direct and defining link" not between fame and entry into politics, rather than between one particular occupation (acting, in this case) and a political career? Thank you, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to rename this to Category:Famous people-politicians, I'd vote to delete as it would be far too amorphous a category to come up with inclusion criteria. The issue is not if I (or you) think it's a defining combination, there are ample reliable and verifiable sources supporting the connection as defining. I supported the retention of Category:Athlete-politicians for exactly the same reason. I am unwilling -- and have no need -- to parse the reason for the defining connection (which would be original research), but I have satisfied the criteria of demonstrating that there is a defining connection. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per the many keep arguments in the last quite recent cfd. I should point out that List of actor-politicians contains not a single source and so would survive for a nano-second if seen by any of the list-deletionists. Occuli (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I honestly saw only one distinct and coherent argument to keep in the recent CFD, which I attempted to summarize in my nomination (and to which I raised two distinct challenges, by the way). Which others did I miss? Also, how is the current state of the list relevant to the appropriateness of the category? Surely the problem you have identified can be solved only by improving the list, independent of anything that is or is not done with the category. Thank you, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 01:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but 'listifying' a category merely produces an unsourced list of names without any of the extra details that 'could' be added to make a list superior to a category (unless the closer is remarkably dedicated). I have read the previous cfd (and the earlier ones), and the nom above, and honestly consider that the intersection is not a trivial one. Whether a particular politician with a background in acting should be included is a matter for the talk page of the article in question, not cfd. Occuli (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's true, but a list (unlike a category) can be improved over time. I do understand your concern about how lists are sometimes approached at AfD, but the two are ultimately separate issues. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a significant intersection. Lists and categories are complementary, and they are almost always both justified in most situations. As for the list, I think it would survive nicely, for the sources are quite adequately in the actual articles, and could be copied easily enough is someone insisted on our being needly pedantic about it. DGG (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes; but I'm sure I've seen DGG at list-afds where massed pedants are insisting on much more than sources. Did not one of Dante's circles of hell involve copying inline sources from 100 articles to a 100-item list? Or was that Sisyphus? (List of gamelan ensembles in the United States is an example of a perfectly good list beset by insatiable pedants who have plastered tags all over it and taken it to afd twice.) Occuli (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete (listify should there be some missing from the existing list) -- the fact that the existing list itself has insufficient references is significant. No article should be in any category without qualifying references, so this category would be empty. I've noticed in the past that we've listified a category, and then the list itself has been deleted at AfD. What reason should this category exist? It's harder to verify? That's terrible reasoning. I'll note that it's always the same people that want to keep these trivial intersection categories.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an excellent demonstration of why the category should be kept. "No article should be in any category without qualifying references, so this category would be empty" - the articles have references, but the list does not. The list could well be deleted for this reason, but since categories cannot be referenced, the category is not going to be. WAS's complete lack of interest in preserving encyclopedic content is made very clear. Whether the intersection is trivial or not is the subject of this and the previous debate. A large number of editors, many not at all the "same people", think it is not. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list, unlike the category, can have references. We generally do not (or should not) judge articles solely by their current state, but also consider their potential for improvement. What matters for the purposes of this discussion is whether the topic of the category is appropriate (we disagree on this point) and whether the topic of the list is valid (as far as I can see, we all agree on this point). However, the fact that the list is currently unsourced is not a reason to keep the category, but rather a reason to add sources to the list. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a significant intersection, per DGG. And same for the Athlete-politician category, too, no doubt coming to a CfD near you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sufficiently common to be of no particular note, such as lawyer-politician. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you mean "listify and delete". I know that a list already exists, but there's a good chance that entries are missing from it. Thanks, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are always making commetns like that. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is effectively a measn of classifying "politicians by former occupation". People scoffed at Regan for being a B-movie actor. The present governor of California became notable as an actor. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct, but do we categorize anyone by former occupation (and, more generally, why should we)? In fact, aside from categories from religious converts (conversion involves a significant change in the beliefs espoused by an individual) and Category:People self-identified as ex-gay (which is, apparently, associated with a distinct movement, see Ex-gay), do we have any categories for people by former attributes? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 16:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Actors who have become politicians For clarity Mayumashu (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thompson was an actor long before he was elected; Springer is in the category, but I'm not sure he meets the criteria - he's pretty borderline notable in both capacities. Johnbod (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Springer's definitely a notable politician, but not really as an actor. But there's no one else who was a politician first? I haven't gone through the entire category looking, but I'd find it strange if there was no one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thompson was a politician (political appointee, political staff, campaign manager) long before he was an actor. Folks don't usually run for US Senate as their first political job.... Springer was certainly a notable politician, but are shouting show hosts considered actors? Anyway, looking through the categories, there are quite a few questionable entries. Isabel Martínez de Perón was a "night club dancer", is that an actor? And the Indian category (heavy sigh) is enlivened with some scandalous material, and some rather POV commentary.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naw, I think Springer's in there because he's been in a few movies, playing himself or a rough caricature of himself. I can't see him being defined by being an actor or as an "actor-politician". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the definition: "For an actor to be included in this category, he/she should normally have been elected at a state or national level." - There's no sign in his article that Thompson met this standard before he acted professionally. Yes, there are lots of scandals in Indian politics, the number of actors elected arguably being one of them. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a weird/arbitrary definition. Someone running for mayor of NYC can easily win more votes than someone running for governor of Wyoming. The definition would exclude mayors of NYC but not governors of Wyoming. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says "normally", & is based I think on how politician Afd's usually go - the actual policy is rather vague as I recall. Yes it favours winners; it may be wierd, but arbitary it ain't. Thompson would not I think pass AFD as a politician based on his pre-election roles of "political appointee, political staff, campaign manager". We don't categorize Norman Mailer as a politician. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concern wasn't that it would prohibit the inclusion of non-winners. My concern was that it would exclude the mayor of NYC, but not the governor of Wyoming, even though the mayor of NYC would likely be elected with far more votes than the governor of Wyoming. That seems arbitrary to me. The NYC mayor situation may be an exception per the "normally," but how do we know when we get to have an exception? Springer was the mayor of Cincinnati—would this be subject to the exception? Why or why not and how do we know? I find it hard to find answers that aren't arbitrary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share your confusion, but that is a general issue of what constitutes political notability that is nothing to do with this category in particular. I didn't realize/forgot Springer was Major; I though he was just on the council. Majors of NY & Cincinnati are certainly notable, I would say. Some say Majors of Malibu, like Clint, are, though personally I'd say no. The policy is rather vague (though I think it has changed, and widened, since I last looked at it), and clearly it depends on the individual's actions in office, not just the office. Sam Blacketer (Westminster councilor) is not a notable politician, according to a recent decision. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Back in March 2009, Category:Actor-singers was deleted for being a trivial intersection. Category:Actor-politicians was also nominated along with it, but the discussion was closed as no consensus. What makes the latter any more different than the former? — Σxplicit 19:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. All things considered, this seems like the most reasonable compromise. I agree with the users that have described the problems with this category. But of course it's an actual phenomenon so of course we could have an well-referenced list. There's been generally a well-established consensus against these kind of "employment intersection" categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me 3 days ... I would like to make an argument for keeping this but I'm prepping for a job interveiw. I just don;t have the time to deal with it every time someone has an idea to get rid of this... what is this the 3rd time.--Dr who1975 (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me... the 4th time.--Dr who1975 (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable intersection. Every politician has had one or more careers before turning to politics. A list article that discusses the phenomenon of parlaying an acting career into a political career would be an interesting read but the category should go. To answer a question asked above, we do not generally categorize people by the intersection of "former profession" and "current profession". We instead categorize them by each profession, assuming that the profession itself is categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Comment re-factored below. Otto4711 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't recall who, but some guy keeps on whining to me and others here at CfD that what we are looking for are "defining" characteristics, not notability. Your argument that "a list is better" applies to every single category in Wikipedia. No category can discuss the phenomenon or provide history, nor can they be sorted, have redlinks, have sources or many other factors that apply to every single category and have no specific relevance to this particular one under discussion. Sources going back to 1965 such as the article "Actor-Politicians and the 'Equal Time' Rule" in the Los Angeles Times discuss the phenomenon in the United States, and this editorial from The Times of India addresses the modern phenomenon there. This article from the China Daily discusses this as a worldwide phenomenon, and there are hundreds upon hundreds of additional sources that could have been included here. I appreciate that you have decided that this category is "non-notable" [sic], but it appears that the media worldwide finds it defining. While we do not generally categorize people in any manner, we do for defining characteristics, and the reliable and verifiable sources available show that it is indeed defining. All that you have stated is that the category should be deleted because you don't like it, without even a mention of a policy or guideline that might justify deletion. Alansohn (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't recall who, but some guy keeps mixing up "defining" and "notable". All of the sources you've cited would serve as a great basis for an article on the phenomenon. Otto4711 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that sources don't count at CfD, as personal whims (a la the arbitrary opinion that "the category should go") and statements of "is not" are deemed far more weighty, but reliable sources talking about "actor-politicians" as a grouping is the textbook definition of "defining". I do love that when ample sources are provided as evidence that they can simply be discarded as not stating what they explicitly state. You may want to check the first hyphenated word of the rationale you present for deletion, where you appear to have a rather bad case of confusing notability and definingness. Alansohn (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The category should go" is no more or less an "arbitrary" opinion than "keep" is, so as usual this is nothing more than your typical pettifoggery, right up there with your standard misrepresentation of arguments you disagree with as "you don't like it". Reliable sources talking about actor-politicians as a grouping is the textbook definition of notability. If your pants are really this bunched over a mis-chosen word in my !vote, then consider it withdrawn and changed to Delete - trivial basis for categorization. Every politician has had one or more careers before turning to politics. A list article that discusses the phenomenon of parlaying an acting career into a political career would be an interesting read but the category should go. To answer a question asked above, we do not generally categorize people by the intersection of "former profession" and "current profession". We instead categorize them by each profession, assuming that the profession itself is categorized. Is that better? Sheesh. Otto4711 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever rationale you choose for deletion, you've failed to address the reliable and verifiable sources that show this as a defining characteristic and a non-trivial intersection. The difference between my "pettifoggery" and yours is that mine is backed by sources, while your's is just a repetition of "is not". I agree that a list "would be an interesting read", which is a fascinating observation in that no category in Wikipedia is an interesting read, nor can any category have sources, red links, sections, be sorted, among many other fundamental flaws that apply to every single category, with no particular relevance to this one. Your arbitrary whim that "the category should go" because you don't find the category a sufficiently "interesting read" is simply invalid as an excuse for deletion. Now that we've rebutted the notable vs. defining confusion in that the articles clearly refer to the category as a means of grouping such individuals, we'd benefit greatly from hearing your explanation for why the reliable and verifiable sources don't demonstrate that the category is a defining intersection. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your entire comment above is a fundamentally dishonest mis-statement of what I've said through the course of this discussion. Your propensity for taking words and phrases from one comment and welding them onto words and phrases from another comment harkens back to the Frankenstein veto that governors of my fair state used to enjoy, twisting legislative intent by vetoing words and phrases and even single digits. Fortunately the voters of my fair state have reined in such gubernatorial outrages. Sadly, it's unlikely that yours will be reined in any time soon so you'll continue in your usual patterns. I can only hope that your distortions don't sway those who are charged with wading through them to determine consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your fears of any admin being swayed by my arguments are belied by the consistent problem of closing admins inserting their own personal bias, a problem that you have described here quite aptly in taking offense at closes that are "rather politically motivated". Please let me know if I am misrepresenting your direct quote here, or if I have pulled a digit out of context. My propensity for quotations may be related to my firm observance of the Wikipedia bedrock policy of using reliable and verifiable sources, for which such quotations are deemed to be standard, and Wikipedia would be a far better place if reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating definingness carried the day against an arbitrary demand that "the category should go". At some point could you take a stab at rebutting direct quotes from reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating that the category of "actor-politician" is defining, or should a closing admin just accept your not an "interesting read" justification for deleting a defining category. Alansohn (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The political motivation behind closing the earlier support/oppose flagged revision CFD was concern that you polluted the process by canvassing. Your use of it here is not a "misrepresentation"; it is a flat-out lie. If you are so concerned about closing admins inserting their personal biases then I suggest that you take it up at WP:ANI rather than trying to make the case here over and over again. Reliable sources are not and have never been the standard for categories, regardless of your many failed attempts to demand otherwise. I have to wonder if after all this time you still actually don't understand that or if you really do understand it and simply ignore it out of zeal. If reliable sources were the standard then every fact that has a reliable source would be eligible for its own category. A simple glance at the long history of categories shows that this is not the case and common sense dictates that it should not be the case. This notion of yours that "the category should go" is somehow more arbitrary than either "keep" or "delete" is bizarre and nonsensical and continual repetition of it will not suddenly make it any less so. I have a strong idea of where you tend to pull your digits out of, but I believe I shall refrain from commenting. Otto4711 (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Reliable sources are not and have never been the standard for categories" as you insist, then CfD is screwed up even more than I have ever believed. If reliable and verifiable sources showing that a category is defining not only are ignored, but are deemed to not even be a standard, in direct conflict with bedrock Wikipedia policy, than we truly have gigantic problems here. If multiple reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating the category as defining are outweighed by the arbitrary whim of WP:IHATEIT and "the category should go", then CfD is an even bigger farce than I could have ever possibly imagined. While the administrators who frequent CfD have persistently refused to deal with your chronic incivility problems, it's time that a firm stance was taken by all CfD participants to roundly reject the effort to turn CfD into a game. Editors who believe and publicly state that reliable sources are not a standard have no basis participating here or in any other deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • False accusation of incivility? Check. False assertion of IHATEIT? Check. Complaint that CFD has turned into a game? Check. So that's three of your standards, but you forgot to call the CFD process "abusive" and "disruptive". Otto4711 (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alan raises some congent points, with which I concur. The process has not disintergrated into something less than an intellectual exchange, and I agree wholeheartedly with his last statement above. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2009 (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:Female diplomats[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Female diplomats to Category:Women diplomats
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent category Category:Women by occupation as well as the category introduction. This will likely serve as a test case to rename any female named categories in this tree to women. I believe that we have a past consensus to use women in category names over female. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you believe that? All I can remember is comments noting the c.50/50 split that has been there for ages. There will be some preferring "female" so some stronger arguments would be nice. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per this discussion 18 months ago. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that shows such a consensus, except perhaps over writers. I think the issue has come up on other occasions, with similar results. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I perceive the distinction as being one of biology versus sociology: "female" emphasizes biological sex, as defined by the possession of two of the same kind of sex-determining chromosome, whereas "women" emphasizes the social construct of gender. The distinction is not quite so well-defined in practice, but since we are mostly trying to capture the latter meaning, I believe that most subcategories of Category:Women by occupation should use "Women" in their titles. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I too would prefer "women" in the titles of most subcats of Category:Women by occupation. Occuli (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am neutral on the overall issue, but have views on some individual categories, though not the present one. Like the last two editors, I think any precedent should only apply to "most subcategories of Category:Women by occupation", not "any female named categories in this tree" per the nom. "Women writers" and artists, but female dancers, and so on. Whether the default, if any, is women or female, I don't really care, nor is it worth avoiding more common terms for consistency. There is a case for leaving them all as they are, unless individually any ones seem odd. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct in that not all should be renamed. If I nominate these, they will be done in groups since some of the female ones clearly should be renamed. Others are clearly subject to discussion and this probably needs to be done on an category by category basis. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find that "women diplomats" sounds awkward, while none of the arguments for a rename convince me. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually female diplomats sounds odd to my ears. Then you have the issue of addressing these individuals, what is normally used? Madam? That is what this encyclopedia would have us believe, actually Madame, but that is a minor point since the issue there is that these are women. So clearly renaming is supported by the article on how these women are actually addressed. So maybe we should not be making decisions on the subjective way it sounds but rather on other articles that directly address this point of proper usage of the term women for this individuals. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ghits seem inconclusive Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inconclusive????? "Female diplomats" gets 2,340 hits and "Women diplomats" gets 24,400 hits! That's an order of magnitude difference. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not on my Google! "Women diplomats" only gets 12k, though this is more; I only checked the singulars before. Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it does seem that it can not be completely uniform, there is reason to change individual cases where neither form seems more customary. DGG (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there appears to be no benefit gained from the change and usage is split. Alansohn (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So random is a better choice then having a style sheet that allows differences? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Black Falcon. I just find there's something demeaning about the term Female, as opposed to Women. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2009 (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:Victims of psychiatric repression[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. I think there is consensus here to fix identified problems but how to do so remains unclear. This close allows cleanup and reorganization to address the identified issues. If as a result of that cleanup this category needs to be brought back, that is acceptable at any time. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Victims of psychiatric repression (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Inherently POV category, and with vague inclusion criteria: it includes people who actually were victims of punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union, along with people in Western countries who were subject to Electroconvulsive therapy or Involuntary commitment. It's POV of us to say that these experiences all amount to 'repression'. This is similar to the Category:Victims of political repression which was nominated for deletion previously, but the case against this article is stronger: there is such a thing as political repression, but we have no article on psychiatric repression, as there is no clear, neutral definition of the term. Robofish (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I wouldn't mind this category if it was limited to the Soviet cases (which could, perhaps, fairly be described as 'psychiatric repressions'), but it's including people who were subject to psychiatric treatment in Western countries that makes it POV. Robofish (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psychiatric repression seems to be a recognized concept (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), which of course does not preclude it from being a loosely-defined or inherently subjective one that perhaps should not form the basis of a category. If there is consensus to avoid use of the term and to limit any category to the Soviet cases only, then perhaps Category:Victims of punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union could be used as the category title. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently POV category named with loaded words.- Gilliam (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and specify better This should be a category for the specific victims of the soviet period, or other such, where the motive is political. Repression in this context implies political but the inclusion of a miscellany of people here does indicate a POV attempt to confuse things. DGG (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose per DGG. The main article is Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union, so rename to Category:Victims of punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union or similar, removing others like Linda Andre, who is an anti-ECT activist. They should be reallocated in neighbouring categories, but for example Andre does not belong in Category:Political abuses of psychiatry, the parent of this. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move per DGG and others. Suggest Victims of Soviet psychiatric repression. This is short and clear.Biophys (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Offliner (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG, Johnbod and Biophys. --Martintg (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inherently POV category named with loaded words, as Gilliam said. There are no references, from what I've seen here for anyone being subjected to psychiatric repression. The whole term is controversial. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clarify per Johnbod, agree with DGG on being specific to specific victims of the Soviet period. PētersV       TALK 00:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rename like Johnbod says above to make it more clear and concise. Ostap 04:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no POV problems here. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one person's "psychiatric repression" is another's "aggressive treatment" or "safeguarding the community". Is everyone subject to involuntary commitment a victim of psychiatric repression? Are the LGBT people who went through courses of psychiatric treatment in the 1920s through 1960s with doctors who truly believed that their actions were in the best interest of their patients psychiatric repression victims? Are people who take anti-depressants victims? At least one well-known person seems to think so. There is no objective standard as to what constitutes "psychiatric repression" and that lack of objectivity makes the category unworkable. Otto4711 (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's use the same way we determine if someone is LGBT, a vegetarian or African-American by relying on verifiable sources. Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union is rather clear in describing the phenomenon, and the presence of the "borderline case argument" is still completely unconvincing and should only be addressed with particular category entries in question rather than as a rationale to delete the entire defining category. If the title is "loaded" a rename may be more effective than deletion. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My, how droll! Since there appears to be an emerging consensus to repurpose the category as a proper Category:Victims of punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union, now would be a good time to produce any objection you may have to that proposal. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, was Leonard Roy Frank imprisoned in a psychiatric facility for "living the life of a beatnik" in the Soviet Union? If not delete, keep the category as is, and let the reliable sources sort them out. PasswordUsername (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2009 (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:Tamils of Sri Lanka[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 (first two categories); do not rename (last three categories).
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. New proposal "[ethnicity] ... of [country]", based on a previous suggestion by Peterkingiron (talk · contribs).
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Helpful note – this is a follow-on from the dog's breakfasts on the same topic(s) of June 10, June 11, June 12, all made by the same nom. The suggestion by Peterkingiron is in the second of these. Occuli (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming Cat:Sri Lankan Tamil (topic) to Cat:Tamil (topic) of Sri Lanka. The designation "Sri Lankan Tamil" refers to an actual ethnic group (see Sri Lankan Tamil people, to be distinguished from Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka), not just Tamil people who happen to be in Sri Lanka. Renaming as proposed in the nomination would be equivalent to changing Category:African American history to Category:African history of the United States. No opinion yet on Category:Tamils of Sri Lanka. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beg to differ. For all/most other similar circumstances, especially British naming conventions, folks have spent 3 years renaming these ethnic categories in the form "Barian [topic] in/of Foo ...". Unlike African American (adjective-noun phrase), a problem with the word order of "Sri Lankan Tamil" is that implies (using the adjective-noun phrase) that Tamil is a nationality for these country categories – very POV! And that lasted for awhile here at Wikipedia, but the Tamil insurrection (and hopefully terrorism) was recently crushed. It's time to update the categories.
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you perhaps point me to one or two CfD discussions for the "similar circumstances" you mentioned. A quick search of Category:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom revealed several categories that follow the convention of this category, including Category:Black British history and Category:British Indian history. While you are correct that "Sri Lankan Tamil" could be interpreted as meaning "Tamils who are Sri Lankan", both "African American" and "Sri Lankan Tamil" are nouns when they are used to refer to the racial and ethnic groups they designate. There is no POV associated with identifying an ethnic group by its commonly-accepted name, and the recent defeat of the LTTE has no bearing on the name of the ethnic group. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming any but the first one. Black Falcon points out a further complication re the first one, which does need renaming and/or repurposing, but not per nom. 'The Sri Lankan Tamil' perhaps; or 'Sri Lankan Tamil' as suggested by Johnbod (and supported in all by 3 of the 5 opiners) in round 2. Occuli (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the last three times. The references to policy are to a page currently fully protected because of disputes, which has changed considerably in the past weeks, in controversial circumstances. See how it was in April when the first two at least (I haven't checked the others) of the relevant head cats were not listed where they are now. In any case the policy, even if valid, clearly only applies to direct sub-cats of the categories named. For example, Category:Culture by nationality is supposed to be "Fooish culture" and indeed is. But the sub-cats like Category:Festivals by country follow many different schemes, or none - the festivals are all "Festivals of Foo". Since the cats here are, as the nom states, not country/nationality categories, the policies, even if valid, simply don't apply. Essentially "Sri Lankan Tamil" is the usual term outside WP, whereas "Tamil foo of Sri Lanka" is far less common. As Occuli says, the first does need renaming for clarity, but not per nom. As per last time (no, sorry, two times ago): Rename Category:Tamils of Sri Lanka to Category:Sri Lankan Tamil, which is the emerging standard for such categories. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod, please stop making false statements:
  • There is no dispute over the naming conventions for "ethnic groups", "culture", "history", "politics", or "society", nor does the page you cite differ. [emphasis added]

    Subcategories of these categories are named "... in country".
    Aviation - Business - Capital punishment - Communications - Conservation - Crime - Disasters - Education - Ethnic groups - Health - Healthcare - Human rights - Landmarks - Law enforcement - Political parties - Public holidays - Rail transport - Religion - Science and technology - Tourism - Transportation (or transport if that is local usage)

    Subcategories of these categories are named "nationality ...".
    Art - Architecture - Classical music - Cuisine - Culture - Folk music - Heavy metal - Hip hop - Jazz - Literature - Music - Opera - Plays - Popular music - Radio - Rock music - Society

  • Category:Culture by nationality currently includes Category:Tamil culture (since 2008-04-29 14:34:05), which in turn leads to this culture category. Tamil is not a country. Sri Lankan Tamil is not a nationality.
  • It is neither interesting nor pertinent that Google searches yield POV word ordering. On Wikipedia, neutrality trumps popularity.
  • This is not a discussion about festivals, nor various other subcategories, nor that other choices have been made elsewhere in the tree.
That Tamil is not a nationality is precisely why the arguments in the nomination are simply irrelevant, as explained above. Please try to keep up. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the quotes above by WAS is that there should be: Category:Ethnic groups in Sri Lanka, and Category:Sri Lankan culture; but that they do not apply to Tamils, whether in SL or in India. I'm not sure that WAS's philosophy can cope with trans-national ethnic groups such Kurds, Hausa, Tamil, Bengalis. (Category:Tamil culture should be removed from Category:Culture by nationality. It has all the authority of an uncommented anon edit.) Occuli (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Once again we find WAS arguing that because a category is in an inappropriate parent, it should be deleted, regardless of its position within other parents, the nature and usefulness of the category itself, or any other consideration. It is very difficult to deal with this sort of thinking. I had misread the earlier link & have struck my comment on that. I won't deal with his other arguments unless the nom attracts support other than his. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm confused. Elsewhere, I believe that WAS (and/or Occuli? Pls correct me if I am wrong) supported deletion of certain ethnicity/something else categorizations, unless it was shown that there was something pertinent about that intersection (e.g., here the argument would be that there was something pertinent about the person being a Tamil ... other than circumstance ... and that it impacted their involvement in the other category ... such as being a Sri Lankan). I don't see that position being taken here. Can someone clear up my confusion? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree only with the second proposal of this list (if the nomination won't be changed ... again). But basically it's about time the nominator admitted his defeat. BTW, I seem to remember stumbling on a like nominaton of his from 2006 (!). Talking about wp:point. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2009 (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.

Brandy categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all as nominated. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Brandy Norwood — Σxplicit 04:47, 22 June 2009 (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:Women comedians[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: Keep. I did add a comment about starting a discussion on female vs. woman. However I did not express an opinion on keeping or deleting. I don't believe that comment excludes me from closing this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Women comedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overclassification by gender + role intersection. We don't have Category:Men comedians or somesuch, now do we? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - were this category to be kept, shouldn't it be Category:Female comedians or even Category:Comediennes? Using "Women" suggests that comedians can only be adults. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or go "female". Category:Women by occupation is well established without male counterparts in most cases, & is about 50/50 women v female. Johnbod (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or go "female" per Johnbod. I would be surprised if no studies have been made on the differences between male and female comedians. (There is Category:Men by occupation but it is rudimentary.) Occuli (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tee-hee! I'd be interested to see a joint convention of those groups. Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I opened a discussion above to address only the female vs women convention. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CAT/GRS, which indicates:

    Categories should not be gendered unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic.

    and

    Dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.

    "Women's comedy" is not a recognized, distinct cultural topic. In addition, most of the people in the category are from North America and Europe, where it is no longer all that rare for women to be comedians. No objection to creating Category:Feminist (genre) comedians, if "feminist comedy" is a real cultural topic. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per prior concerns about overcategorization policy.- Gilliam (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This category couldn't meet WP:CATGRS any more clearly. The 2008 Vanity Fair article "Who Says Women Aren’t Funny?" appears to believe that this is a strong defining characteristic, as do hundreds of other magazine and newspaper articles that don't believe that this is "overcategorization". The absence of categories for White people, Heterosexuals and men is an exceedingly poor and utterly invalid argument for the deletion of corresponding categories for African-Americans, LGBT people or women, and is one of the poorest rationalizations for deletion, let alone as a primary reason offered in a nomination. Alansohn (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is in fact one of the categories where there is a distinction by gender. DGG (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Historically, women have had to overcome obstacles to be accepted in comedy. As the absence of a White American sportspeople category is no reason to delete Category:African American sportspeople, I'd agree with Alansohn that the lack of a Men comedian category is insufficient rationale in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, in the interests of brevity I'd prefer Category:Comediennes, as suggested above, in the same way that we have actress categories as opposed to "female actors." Also, do the editors who think we should delete this category also believe we should not have separate male and female categories for actors? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete historically, left-handed people have had to overcome obstacles - people with glasses have had to overcome obstacles - people whose parents weren't married have had to overcome obstacles - whoop-de-doo, that doesn't support creating categories as our view of charity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that we should expect some measure of seriousness in consideration of deletion that has some shred of connection to Wikipedia policy. Your argument that there are no corresponding categories for left-handed people, wearers of glasses and children of single parents is an argument that could be used to justify deletion of any category. Not only is it WP:WAX at its worst, but it falls into the same category of irrelevant arguments as "a list would be better" and "but who will maintain it" that are really arguments to dismantle the entire category structure and have no relevance to deletion of this (or any other) particular category. It's well past time that votes based on similarly nonsensical and invalid criteria are roundly ignored when admins play the "weighting game". Alansohn (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn. (Rename to "female" is fine.) The relationship between gender (not "feminism") and comedy is of substantial academic and popular interest. Here are some more book-length studies, found quickly via a Google Books search:
  • Frances B. Gray, Women and laughter (University of Virginia Press, 1994), ISBN 9780813915135
  • Gail Finney, Look who's laughing: gender and comedy (Taylor & Francis, 1994), ISBN 9782881246456
  • Linda Martin, Kerry Segrave, Women in comedy (Citadel Press, 1986), ISBN 9780806510002
  • Mary Unterbrink, Funny women: American comediennes, 1860-1985 (McFarland, 1987), ISBN 9780899502267
--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_22&oldid=1138392577"