Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 9 May 11 >

May 10[edit]

Category:Fictional possibly bisexual characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Magioladitis (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional possibly bisexual characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Uncertain and subjective inclusionary criteria. To include any character would require speculation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - impermissible original research required to include any article. Adding the characters to an existing list of fictional LGBT characters under an appropriate header and with sourcing might work but would still raise OR concerns. Otto4711 (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now where is Dr Sub's list .... Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If 'possibly' hadn't been in the title it may have been acceptable. But where do you draw the line. Does the character just have to be in the book to qualify; or does that character have to be relevant to the plot? Far too vague - delete. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I would have thought any (humanoid) fictional character was possibly bisexual. (I see that only Chandler Bing is there at the moment - surely there are others to keep him company?) Occuli (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As soon as the word "possibly" pops into existence, the entire thing becomes speculation. Totally pointless. And I've removed the category from Chandler Bing because the show makes it clear, on many occasions, that he is totally straight. --Captain Infinity (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pr all of the above, pure speculation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 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:HD channels[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:HD channels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or rename - either delete as so commonplace as to not be defining of the station or, if retained, rename to Category:High-definition television channels or something similar to expand the abbreviation and to match the parent category. Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: per nom as there are an increasing, yet still few channels operating in strictly HD. HDnet is one of them for example. Mr. C.C.
  • Delete per nom. Restricting this to channels that only have material filmed in HD seems to be problematic. While this may cover a few channels today, will it be meaningful in the future? When does a new channel get added to this category? After they only carry HD material for a week? A month? Do they get dropped once they broadcast anything not filmed in HD? This is probably best left to the specialty sites and is not of significance to an encyclopedia. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 00:44, 18 May 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:Films broadcast by Animax[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Magioladitis (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films broadcast by Animax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing films by the network on which they are broadcast is overcategorization unless they are original productions of the network. None of these are original to Animax, except possibly éX-Driver (the article does not make it clear whether this was an Animax production or not). A list of programs already exists. Otto4711 (talk) 23:09, 10 May 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:Shows broadcast by Teletoon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on may 26. Kbdank71 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Shows broadcast by Teletoon to Category:Teletoon original programs
Nominator's rationale: Rename and restrict - categorizing TV series on the basis of the stations to which they are syndicated is per a number of precedents overcategorization because the same program can be syndicated to any number of stations, which would lead to enormous category clutter. This should be renamed and restricted to those shows which are original to Teletoon. Otto4711 (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That will make the category bare or less filled. We could follow the list of shows broadcast by Food Network Canada to have all shows broadcast by Teletoon. Mr. C.C.
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:Detroit Pistons broadcasters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Detroit Pistons broadcasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Boston Red Sox sportscasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - the teams whose games one broadcasts is not defining of the broadcaster. Teams play many other teams so, taken to its logical conclusion, a category would be needed for each team the Pistons played. The category also creates the impression that the people in it are officially associated with or employed by the Pistons the way that the members of Category:Detroit Pistons players or Category:Detroit Pistons coaches are, which I do not believe is the case (although since I am not an expert in the subject I may be wrong). Otto4711 (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: regarding The category also creates the impression that the people in it are officially associated with or employed by the Pistons. In many cases, the sports franchise does employ their own broadcast team (and then contract out who the broadcast partner is over the years). Regardless, the explicit definition of what embodies the category can be made clear on the category page itself, so I believe that this particular point is moot. If a team has a history of employing numerous broadcasters, I could see a case being made for keeping the category. Example: Bob Costas could be categorized as "Chicago Bulls Broadcaster", along with Chuck Swirsky and Bill Wennington.
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:Film awards for Best Picture[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. Kbdank71 15:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Film awards for Best Picture to Category:Awards for best film
Nominator's rationale: Most of the awards in this category are not for "Best Picture," in those exact words. May I suggest simply "Best film awards," in regular case, per WP:NCCAT guidelines? Suggest Category:Awards for best film, per Otto, below. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 10 May 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:Calw[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete for now, presuming the two are redundant, which may or may not prove to be 100% correct. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Calw to Category:Rural districts in Baden-Württemberg
Nominator's rationale: Rename. We have two categories for 1 article here. I admit I don't know the German settlement and government structure, but this appears to be a rural district of which there are many in Baden-Württemberg so a rename and populate could be better then a delete. Any Germans around to help? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 10 May 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.

Neo-Stalinism and Neo-Stalinist organisations[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: Procedural keep, because the nomination is so ridiculously long. I don't know how many of those commenting here have read it, but it is seriously disruptive to ask editors to read three screenfuls of text which the nominator has unhelpfully set into small type. (It would take even more screenfuls if not shrunk below legibility levels). If there is a coherent argument in this mini-thesis then it can be condensed, and should have been condensed by reducing the number of words rather than by forcing editors to read it in a smaller typeface than the rest of CFD.
A nomination this verbose also skews any following discussion, by requiring editors to spend more time reading the nominators arguments on this category than in reading all the nominations for the rest of the week, and that is likely to deter editors who are not deeply immersed in the subject and who often provide a important perspective.
This is a procedural close, so there is no impediment to fresh nomination(s) being made in the future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neo-Stalinism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Neo-Stalinist organisations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Strong delete for both - (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BLP).

Although we should keep the article Neo-Stalinism given the currency of the term, we should delete the categories.

In brief:

  • 1) No self-identification as "Neo-Stalinist."
  • 2) Pejorative usage.
  • 3) No single definition for "Neo-Stalinist."
  • 4) Controversially applied term.
  • 5) No widely-accepted, objectively sourced definition explaining the term given on the main article for any of the very different characterizations given for "Neo-Stalinist."
  • 6) Inclusion of living people (inherently controversial).

Category:Neo-Stalinism: aside from the very short main article (where accuracy and POV are disputed as far as definition), the category contains a collection of material on assorted so-called "Neo-Stalinists." As such, the category breaks down into a list of "Neo-Stalinists" and the subcategory "Neo-Stalinist organizations." Not one of these, regardless of their receptiveness (or lack thereof) towards Stalin's contributions to 20th-century history, actually self-identify (or have self-identified) as "Neo-Stalinists."

More problematically, the term does not now, nor ever has, even enjoyed a single, coherent meaning, as can be gleaned from the political and historical/historiographical usage, which I am outlining below. While I do favor keeping the article Neo-Stalinism, seeing that the term enjoys considerably currency in Western sources, if everything else besides that's currently in the category went, we would be stuck with one article in the category. As such, I strongly recommend that we follow WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP.

In-depth My criticisms, of course, are not separate from the term "Neo-Stalinism" itself. To proceed from the foregoing, the term "Neo-Stalinism" is seriously problematic because it has multiple uses, and the Neo-Stalinism article itself indicates that these may be used in an historical or in a political sense. The first of the definitons – surprise, surprise, unsourced – proclaims that "Neo-Stalinism is a term used to describe historical revisionism in favor of Stalinism." This is deeply problematic in itself: in the first place, the article never specifies where it has gotten this unsourced definition from. A simple Google search will indicate that the term is almost always used in a pejorative political sense – not in the sense applicable to historical revisionists, for whom a well-fitting category (Historical revisionism (political)) already exists. At the same time, all those included by the creators of the category are, in fact, political figures.

Quite aside from the legitimacy of this unsourced usage of "neo-Stalinism," the category's catch-all accusatory tone in this sense is particularly unneeded, as historical revisionism, as the historical revisionism article notes, may be "either the legitimate scholastic correction of existing knowledge about an historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favourable light." What are we to make, then, of such well-respected historians as the American historian Professor J. Arch Getty, currently teaching history at UCLA, whose estimated figures have been significantly lower for the number of casualties of Joseph Stalin's rule than those of other historians of the 1930s?

Political usage: whose? Given the fact that we have yet to see any consensus among historical or popular mainstream sources as to what qualifies as "Neo-Stalinism" in the historical sense – confounded by the deafening silence of any actual historians labelling themselves with the term – it would be only natural to examine the possibility of applying the epithet in a political sense. Unfortunately, here we come back to square one: if anything, there is even more divergence among usage of the term in the political sense than in the historical – historiographical usage discussed above.

Here again, the main source of trouble is that nobody actually describes himself as a "Stalinist." As can be seen from the Anti-Revisionism entry, which already notes the negative tone of the epithet as an ideological slur,

"Anti-revisionism (known to its detractors as 'Stalinism') is seen by its followers as a healthy, solid, scientific ideological road, devoid of both the alleged corruption and elitism of Trotskyism, and the perceived idealism of Left Communism."

The Stalinism article propounds that

"The term 'Stalinism' is almost never used as a positive term. Those who subscribe to the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao almost never describe themselves as Stalinists; they see the term as not only disparaging but also indicative of an erroneous certainty among detractors of Stalin's legacy that his current supporters are 'Stalin-worshippers'. Even today, Stalin is seen as having been a positive figure by many in Russia. Typically, so-called Stalinists will either defend Stalin overall or will defend the most defensible aspects of his legacy, such as the victory over fascism in World War II, and will describe themselves as either revolutionary communists or, if they desire to be more specific, as anti-revisionists."

In the ideological sense, "Stalinism" is very often not used to indicate support for Stalin's crimes – his purges, show trials, or mass murders (although, as a catch-all term, it can also mean that – but to condemn the anti-Revisionist idea that the Soviet Union of the 1930s was largely progressing towards the state of communism, a term used to disparage not simply the small minority of those who go as far as whitewashing the bloody history of the Soviet Union in the 1930s, but against those who see the general development of the Soviet Union, such as its collectivization and industrialization in the 1930s as development according to a genuinely Marxist path. Perhaps more amazing to the uninitiated is the fact that in political discourse "Stalinist" and "neo-Stalinist" are most notably used as sectarian terms of abuse heaped upon the mainstream current of Marxists-Leninist ideology by the communist Trotskyists, who denounce "Stalinism" as a deviation from the true path of Marx and Lenin – in this sense, Stalinism actually denotes what is perceived as the "Stalinist" turn towards the restoration of capitalism.

Sectarian as it may seem, this understanding of Stalinism is significant enought to be listed as the second instantiation of "Neo-Stalinism" in the Neo-Stalinism article. I do not think that this sort of usage is appropriate for Wikipedia. For one thing, "Stalinism" and "neo-Stalinism" in this sense are routinely used by Trotskyists to describe very openly anti-Stalinist Marxist-Leninists, including Khrushchev and Gorbachev as "Stalinists" in the sense of heirs to the socialism-in-one-country ideological line of Stalin. In this sense, writers such as Chris Harman (as witnessed in his 1988 book From Stalin to Gorbachev) identify both Khrushchev and Gorbachev as essentially Stalinist in the aforementioned sense.

In the foregoing fashion, even Eurocommunist parties that have long followed Khrushchev's lead in denouncing Stalinism have been characterized as Stalinist movements. For example, the Communist Party of Great Britain observes that

"The CWI (the Trotskyist Committee for a Workers' International) denounced Tommy Sheridan as too ‘rightwing and as a neo-Stalinist capitalist’. At least Tommy was not misquoted in the capitalist press attacking socialists."
 – See http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/368/cwicrisis.html

Alternatively, it can mean employing the repressive methods ascribed to the Stalin regime. For example, the anti-Stalin Marxist theorist Andy Blunden writes that

"The use of the political police for the settlement of internal disputes and the use of the bullet in the back of the head was in general greatly moderated, but in every respect Khrushchev remained a Stalinist. He defended the system [ie, Stalin's legacy]."
 – See http://www.marxists.org/subject/stalinism/origins-future/ch2-2.htm.

A meaningless hodge-podge

We have – on more than a mere handful of occasions – deleted Category:Racists on essentially the same grounds. The trouble, to quote the moderator of the first instance of deleting the entry, was "POV magnet: content was just this: "This is a list of individuals who have admitted to, or are or were widely considered to be, racists." An analogy to, say, Neo-Nazism would fail miserably: whereas virtually no one self-identifies as a "Stalinist" or a "Neo-Stalinist," many far righters do, in fact, identify as "Nazis" and "neo-Nazis."

Moreover, the epithet "Neo-Nazism" is taken as the modern incarnation of Nazism, which is universally acknowledged as an independent ideology of its own creation; whereas Nazism is ideologically credited to Adolf Hitler, many historians, both Communist and anti-Communist, on the other hand, do not draw a distinction between the political course pursued by Stalin as separate form the philosophical contributions of Karl Marx.

If we go by the incredibly ambiguous idea of Stalinists as those who promote positive views of Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill would also qualify as examples of Stalinists, having themselves contributed much to the wartime propaganda endorsement of Joseph Stalin as the West's avuncular ally "Uncle Joe." If it sounds strange to label anti-communist figures Stalinists, consider the example of Saparmurat Niyazov, the late anti-communist Turkmen dictator included in the Neo-Stalinism category, described as a "Stalinist" ruler despite having abandoned Communism with the Soviet collapse in the early '90s, then having forbidden membership in the Communist Party of Turkmenistan – an entity forced underground during his reign. So too is Gennady Zyuganov, head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, known for some positive remarks on the subject of Stalin's rule, but included without any specific qualification as to in regard to what sort of standard his presence is in fact pertinent to the category. Here, again, the category only instantiates the identity crisis laid out at the beginning: if we are to consider the category meaningful, it seems that one would have to conflate together historical revisionists, anti-Communist dictators-of-the-iron-fist, nostalgic Russian communists...and perhaps more. What, then, are the defining objective criteria for meaningful inclusion?

To up the ante, the Neo-Stalinism article says that

"As of 2008, nearly half of Russians view Stalin positively, and many support restoration of his monuments dismantled in the past."

Are these people all neo-Stalinists?

Are we to take the term "Neo-Stalinism" as an epithet denoting a political position taken by modern-day "Stalinists" who are already covered under the category Category:Anti-Revisionists?

Are we to use it to include both Communist dictators and anti-Communist rulers of dictatorial states such as Saparmurat Niyazov and Kim Jong-Il (who has broken with Anti-Revisionism in favor of Juche)?

Are we to use it to include anti-Stalin Soviet leaders like Nikita Khrushchev and Mikhail Gorbachev, as applied by the Trotskyist tendency – now fashionably influential in the 1990s-2000s?

Are we to use it to house articles about reputable, if not entirely mainstream, historians such as Professor J. Arch Getty?

Are we to use it to denote anybody who has ever publicly expressed any positive sentiment about Stalin's contribution to Soviet development, such as Michael Parenti or Gennady Zyuganov?

Even if all of the above, from Stalin's lukewarm to defenders to his zealous admirers universally reject the "Stalinist" / "Neo-Stalinist" label for themselves?

To what extent does an inherently pejorative category like "Neo-Stalinists" – which neither has self-described members nor a universal and indisputable definition – even respect any approach towards objective (uncontroversial) standards? And what is the point of the category?

The neo-Stalinist challenge! If we are going to label people "Neo-Stalinists," it would at least do some good to 1) find one concrete meaning of "Neo-Stalinism", and 2) establish a canonical example of some undisputably "neo-Stalinist" individuals. I do not see any viable and POV-free way of satisfying the first criterion. As far as satisfying the second criterion, the clearest case, of course, would be established by citing a notable example of a public figure who self-identifies as a Neo-Stalinist. (In fact, I'm going to go really bold here and give out my first barnstar to whoever manages to locate the web site of a self-described "neo-Stalinist" or "neo-Stalinist organization" worthy of being cited as a Wikipedia reference.)

Extending from the foregoing The facts are that the category is inherently biased, unobjective, and prone to the worst sort of POV pushing-and-pulling. Much like our formely existing Category:Racists, it is plainly obvious that the category will simply be used as an attack-dog against anyone deemed, in some sense or other, to be "too Stalinist" (since there is no objective criteria for inclusion); moreover, we already have the unpleasant history of Johan Bäckman, a living person, being pulled into the Neo-Stalinism category, only to be removed shortly afterward. The template equivalent of the category has now been deleted per the discussion here.PasswordUsername (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This unsigned nomination is probably the longest I have ever seen at CFD. I can be verbose myself, but all the same I think the nominator would help everyone by condensing this one. It would also be better to refrain from comments about another editor which don't sound very AGF in tone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and advise the nominator to try and avoid rambling in CfD nominations. I'll never get back the minutes of my life I wasted on reading this stuff, and I'm regretting it already. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 20:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator. I already gave some feedback in Talk:Neo-Stalinism. The term really exists even if it used in many ways and certainly doesn't define a specific political current in the moment. But this is not a discussion about the article but the categories. With this in mind I would say that there is no way to characterise specific people as Neo-Stalinists. More specifically, the people who are now in the list would be far to be described as neo-stalinists. Brezhnev would not even describe himself as a follower or admirer of Stalin. W. Churchill was a bigger fan of Stalin, according to his writings. The problem of people was also discussed in the corresponding template. This category, if kept, will eventually end up with a single article. For the other category I could say only one thing: What is the purpose of it? To include all pro-Stalinists organisations? There are other categories for this. In political science organisations that supported Stalin after 1953-56 are called "Antirevisionist" and we already have a category [:Category:Anti-Revisionist organizations]] which is also divided in the different currents which occurred from this current. As least from the point of view of political science the Neostalinist organisations category makes no sense, or at least can't apply for political parties. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, this was nominated and kept just a few weeks ago: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_3#Category:Neo-Stalinism and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_3#Category:Neo-Stalinist_organisations, I don't see what has changed in that time. Martintg (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Martin, please consider that the very basis for deletion is different, as you can see from the links you've posted. The indeterminacy of the term itself, as opposed to merely the capacity of using it as a POV machine, for example, is brought up here. Neo-Stalinism means 20 different things, depending on context, since there has never been an ideological movement formally calling itself "Stalinism." There has also been the subsequent decision to do away with the Neo-Stalinism template (here), where a completely different consensus emerged. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think bringing a category every couple of weeks to CfD using a "different basis for deletion" is valid way of dealing with things you may not like. Neo-Stalinism exists as do neo-Stalinists (and it only takes two to form an organisation). These categories are valid, the issue of what articles to include in the category is properly dealt with on the relevant article talkpage on a case by case basis. --Martintg (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your article only deepens my argument above. The first link is to 686 uses of the term in Google Books, the first of which refers to neo-Stalinism as the crackdowns Brezhnev era in the 1960s, following the liberalization of Khrushchev's Thaw in the 1950s. The second link is to a book by a Hal Draper, a Trotskyist author who, writing in 1948, refers to neo-Stalinism as an ideological shift in Stalin's ideology during the mid-1930s – to distinguish between the "old Stalin" and the "new Stalin." So which one is neo-Stalinism supposed to be? There can be no objective answer, because Stalinism has only been used as a term of opposition, a pejorative to refer to something equated with Stalin and his rule. (Stalin himself did not use the term, nor do any of the so-called "neo-Stalinists" define themselves in this fashion today.) And if we delete the non-controversial entries (as they are all controversial), we are going to end up with just the Neo-Stalinism article itself, which should stay without the categories. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I don't think Stalin would have used the term "neo-Stalinism" himself as he is dead. No doubt Stalin never called himself a "Stalinist" either, just has Hitler never called himself a "Nazi". "Nazi" was originally coined as as a term of opposition, a pejorative to refer to something equated with National Socialism. But neo-Stalinism is discussed in published sources, just as neo-Nazism is, thus we use published reliable sources that help us define when to apply this category. Striping articles from categories that are subject to CfD is a common tactic, but I don't think underpopulated categories is sufficient reason for deletion. Martintg (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nazi" is simply the easily pronouncable short form for National Socialist, which Hitler objectively defined and identified himself as, so it's a quite different situation. Stalin identified himself as a Marxist-Leninist, and both communist historians (of the Anti-Revisionist tendency) and anti-communist historians disagree as to whether Stalinism was actually separate from Marxist theory (in both camps, scholars and theorists have argued that he did not bring anything ideologically new to the table). So, no, Hitler was a Nazi in an objective sense; whether Stalin was a "Stalinist" or just a Marxist is a matter of dispute. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "Nazi" disappeared from use within Germany after Hitler took power, see Nazi#Terminology. Hitler identified himself as a "national socialist", as opposed to an "international socialist". To claim Stalin was not a Stalinist must be a joke. Here we have some dictionary definitions of Stalinism and Stalinist. ---Martintg (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "Nazi" could have disappeared within Germany, but it was retained, especially in the West, as synonymous with Adolf Hitler's National Socialism (that's what "Nazi" abbreviates). The dictionary definition you have provided for Stalinism is

    "The bureaucratic, authoritarian exercise of state power and mechanistic application of Marxist-Leninist principles associated with Stalin"

    and your second link – to "Stalinist" – is just the adjective form for the same noun (so we get the same definiton). The people and organizations in the category are mostly just political figures; virtually none of the people included and none of the organizations even exercise control over state political power. None of them has the "mechanistic application of Marxist-Leninist principles." A major problem! (Incidentally, North Korea has officially abandoned Marxism-Leninism for Juche (see article), so they're out as far as Stalinism, let alone "neo-Stalinism." Can you name anyone who could uncontroversially be deemed a "neo-Stalinist"? If you can find a readily identifiable one, I'll give you a Barnstar. The problem is that this definition is so vague that it can't be done. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as the term "Nazi" is retained by the West as synonymous with Adolf Hitler's National Socialism, so too the West has retained the term "Stalinist" as synonymous with Josef Stalin's version of Marxist-Leninist principles. There is the danger of attempting to argue from first principles, i.e, engage in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, when published sources clearly make the connection between North Korea and neo-Stalinism, such as here. Do I get my barnstar? --Martintg (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • North Korea has abandoned Marxism-Leninism (its official ideology is now Juche, which was adopted in place of Soviet Marxism Leninism in 1972). So it clearly contradicts your own definiton, Marting, in this very instance. Do you agree with your previous post – that Stalinism is identified with Marxism-Leninism as practiced by Stalin – or is it now compatible with the uniquely North Korean Juche ideology, which is North Korea's replacement for M-L? Either one or the other, right? PasswordUsername (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not my claim that North Korea was(is?) a neo-Stalinist state, but the claim of a published author. I'd rather rely upon what published sources say rather than some conjecture of an anonymous Wikipedian applying some dictionary definition of "Stalinist" when determining whether North Korea is neo-Stalinist or not. The former is WP:RS and WP:V, the latter is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Martintg (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've just contradicted what you wrote above. Please make up your mind: is it the dictionary or the Cold War spy book? The dictionary definiton usage suggestion here wasn't mine. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. We decided to keep these categories only a week ago a month ago (see links by Martintg above). Let's not waste our time here. The long discussion by nominator belongs to talk page of article Neo-Stalinism.Biophys (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This was actually a month ago. I do not think that my discussion pertains only the Neo-Stalinism talk page, although I do believe that we should first work out what Stalinism means (at there seems to be no single agreed upon definition, going by both this discussion and the one taking place there). I do not believe that we should classify people who do not self-identify as neo-Stalinists, when we not only have not agreed as to what neo-Stalinism is, but do not even have a way of identifying it. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a verified published reliable source mentions something is "neo-Stalinist", and no other source can be found that contradicts that assertion, that is sufficient. No need to rely upon a definition created by some Wikipedian. Martintg (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is what is considered objective and verifiable, Martin. This is the crux of it. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing admin" This is a disussion about the Category and not the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but most of the arguments by nominator was about meaning of the term, which I think belongs to the article.Biophys (talk) 01:26, 11 May 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:Artists who started record labels[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: procedural close Category has already been deleted by PeterSymonds on May 19. Kbdank71 15:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Artists who started record labels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic. Basically a re-creation of Category:Artists who own record labels, G4 was declined. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nom is correct, non-defining and should have been deleted as a re-creation. Otto4711 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both & nb again an unqualified "artists" means visual artists in category names. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. It's not that hard to do. Give me a list of every single artist that has ever started a record label. Only then will i understand the deletion. Deleting this category without the slighest reason seems pretty annoying. Ryanbstevens (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It would almost be better to categorize all artists who have NOT started their own record label, as that would very likely be a smaller list. Even if listed as "Musicians who own record labels", the question is whether this is encyclopedic, citable in reputable 3rd parties, info or something that should merely be listed elsewhere on the interwebs. SpikeJones (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why can't anyone tell me exactly why this category's a bad idea, besides being non-defining? Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-defining = bad idea, when it comes to categories. No further reason is needed. To expand the discussion, you could try to demonstrate why this is defining. Or ask others why they think it is not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is defining, because there are not that many artists who start their own labels. I know of nearly ten artists who have started their own label. It's a defining characteristic because not many artists do this. This is surprising, and doesn't happen very often. If there are many more than just ten artists that have started their own labels, then list them, or just say something. If i'm wrong, then just say so. But this has to be a defining category. How can it not be? Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intersections of "people in X occupation who also did Y" are not encyclopedic, unless you can actually write a sourced article about a recognized culturally-significant phenomenon of artists starting record labels. "Surprising" does not equal "defining". "Not that many people have fit into this particular intersection of traits" does not equal "defining". "Recognized as a significant cultural phenomenon by external sources which explain in detail what makes being an artist who started a record label meaningfully different from being an artist who didn't start a record label" equals defining, and this doesn't have that. And, for that matter, the fact that you've only categorized country music artists here tells me quite a bit about why you think this is so much rarer than it actually is — in many other genres, starting one's own record label, either on one's own or as a collective with other like-minded artists, is much more of a norm than an exception. Hip hop and indie rock are, for example, two genres where this isn't a remotely surprising or out of the ordinary thing for an artist to do. And finally, "artists" in a category name on Wikipedia means visual artists, like painters or photographers, not musicians. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well i do know what you're talking about though. But the biggie here is WHY can't we keep this category? What are you guys afraid of that will happen if this category is kept. Is keeping this category like opening pandora's box or something? Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat and others. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 00:48, 18 May 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:Former students of Guildford Grammar School[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. Consensus is that graduation from this particular secondary school is defining enough to warrant a category, as an exception from general practice.--Aervanath (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Former students of Guildford Grammar School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Guildford Grammar School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - where one goes to high school is rarely if ever a defining characteristic. If kept for some unearthly reason then it needs to be renamed to comport to whatever the structure is for alumni in Australia. Otto4711 (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a fair few similar-named sub-cats in the parent - Category:People by school in Australia. Lugnuts (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue is not as simple as it looks - (1) the nominator has prodded the previously deleted parent category that covers the school - which was previously deleted 2 years ago (2) this CFD is for a sub category - the arguments at the previous CFD for the parent category were unaminous - I would suggest that the issue is not simplified by the fact that other Australian schools have former student categories. I am posting comment about this at the Australian project - once again a CFD that needs wider scope beyond the thin air of the CFD factory SatuSuro 14:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to Category:Old Guildfordians as this seems to be the correct name. Where one goes to high school is generally considered a defining characteristic, although perhaps not in the US to judge from previous cfds (which tend to end up as no consensus keeps; perhaps the most recent is Category:St. Paul's School (New Hampshire) alumni). Occuli (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to bundle another cat in this discussion. Category:Guildford Grammar School was tagged for speedy deletion today per WP:CSD#G4 and I speedied it. (Previous deletion discussion with a nearly unanimous vote is here.) The category creator requested that I reconsider, and I proposed we discuss it here. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - possibly renamed as above. The school is notable, there are enough articles to warrant a cat, and from numerous parallel cats it's clear that in Australia, as in many other places, place of secondary education IS defining.HeartofaDog (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; there are maybe five schools in Western Australia that I would consider of sufficient historical and/or cultural importance to warrant an alumni category. This is one of them. Hesperian 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. As I've said many a time before, the requirement that articles only be categorised by "defining characteristic" is a bizarre fantasy constructed by category deletionists, with no basis in any policy or guideline, and certainly no basis in practise. It is a shame that the same shit keeps being trotted out over and over again until eventually it starts to seem legitimate. Hesperian 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments of Occuli and Hesperian - or re-name per occuli SatuSuro 00:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename, include renaming others within Category:People by school in Australia so that there is some consistency either 'former students of' or 'alumini'. It would seem that Category:Former students of Guildford Grammar School should either fall within Category:People by school in Western Australia or that sub-cat should be deleted and all those within that sub-cat just be listed in Category:People by school in Australia. The overall category should probably be Category:Alumni by High School in Australia then split into sub-cats by state - using the university example. Dan arndt (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people by high school is not defining - any more so than is having formerly worked in the Job Corps, McDonalds, and other pre-professional activities. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the unearthly reason that this is a strong defining characteristic of graduates of this school, unlike most other secondary schools. Thankfully, most of us are able to distinguish between working at McDonald's and attendance at a notable and strongly defining high school. Alansohn (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Comments that "people by high school is not defining" and similar, are not very helpful, as it is quite clear that in some cases they are. Is anyone going to suggest that we delete Category:Old Etonians on the grounds that it is a High School, which of course it is. In this particular case, I am less sure, but I see some editors from Western Australia whose judgment I trust, argue that this High School is defining, so I support keep in this case. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if you read the articles in question. Is expulsion and not finishing secondary school defining? Yes, at least one of the articles spends considerable time discussing what the person did at the school. But even then it does not explain why it was defining for that individual. Virtually every article basically simply says that they attended the school and nothing past that. If this is really something special or defining, then the reasons should be covered in the article. Failing that, there is no reason to retain the category since the links to the school in the articles is sufficient. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment maybe - but some would say that Heath Ledger would be sufficient to keep the category :) SatuSuro 11:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then we would be saying delete as over categorization. Categories are not required. In some cases a list or a template can be a better solution. This sounds like support for this being a list, which already exists in the article.
  • Keep -- This is a typical alumni category, of which we have many, though more for tertiary than secondary education. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Place of secondary schooling is not defining. This the case both in general and in the specifics of this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now where's my 10-ft pole? Not going to close this for obvious reasons and plenty of precedent, but nothing says I can't opine (and I get much less drama for doing so). I'm not sure that secondary school categorization is defining, and if you really don't like that term, even though Otto did a good job of explaining it, then I'll say it's not encyclopedic. Either way, delete. --Kbdank71 15:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Hesperian, plus in my view where students went to secondary school is a defining characteristic of those who attended 5 or 6 "elite" schools in Western Australia, as with many other places in the world. A graduation from one of these places is basically a ticket into the Establishment (much as my egalitarian fibre is completely against that notion, it is largely true). To address Vegaswikian's concerns I would not be opposed to limiting the category to alumni of the school rather than simply "former students". Orderinchaos 18:05, 27 May 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:2004 United States election voting controversies[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) 21:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2004 United States election voting controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not used. Only one page exists that could reasonably fit the description. 2004 United States election voting controversies Bonewah (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Perhaps this nomination was meant for another category. Category:2004 United States election voting controversies contains 18 articles; there is no assertion made that these articles are inappropriately placed in this category. And given the facts regarding this election cycle, there certainly was controversy. Hmains (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Hmains. The category is well-populated, and there is probably scope for a lot more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category groups articles that are directly related to one of the major historic political controversies in the United States in recent decades. Alansohn (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I misspoke earlier when i said it was not used. However, all the entries in this category, save one, are not really controversies. Participants in controversies, yes, critics of the election, yes, but actual controversies, no. Bonewah (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE the notice for this discussion was on the talk page rather then on the category page. This may be grounds for a relisting. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC) (The category was mistagged (see note above). Note also the nominator's clarified rationale for deletion.)[reply]
  • Delete - absent the far-too-tangential inclusion of people like GWB, Barbara Boxer and Jesse Jackson, there are about three articles that would go here, making this a small category. I disagree that there is any scope for expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is another example of a common situation I am meeting lately. all articles but one are about people related to 2004 United States election voting controversies but purely this subject is discussed in their articles. Categories about subjects should contain articles about the subject. The content of the main article provide enough links to people related to the subject. If people think not, a list in the article or a separate list of people would be enough. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, there are several people in here who shouldn't be. But unless there are very few legitimate members, that's an argument for clean-up, not deletion. I see three articles that should definitely be in this category (2004 United States election voting controversies, Michael Connell, and Moss v. Bush), and three more that probably should be (Ken Blackwell, Premier Election Solutions, aka Diebold, and Cliff Arnebeck). That's enough to justify keeping the category. -- Avenue (talk) 04:30, 18 May 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:Disney villains[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: speedy delete per G4. Magioladitis (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Disney villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category was previously deleted in Oct 2007; as seen in the history/talk on Disney Villains, there is much controversy over what constitutes a "Disney Villain" ie is it an official franchise character, an opinion on a character's actions, any mean character, the primary antagonist (whether villainous or not), etc. Without clear guidelines, this category (as we saw previously on the current franchise-oriented page) will turn into an artbitrary list with no oversight as to what should or shouldn't belong. SpikeJones (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think that it is pretty clear to determine what constitutes a Disney Villain; the franchise itself has determined this through shows and sketches. It is not an "arbitrary list" and I do not see any controversy at all. For instance, it is clear that Snow White, Simba or Sebastian the crab are not villains, while Hook or Maleficent are. --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Your examples are correct, as those are already named as part of the marketing franchise. What isn't clear are those characters that are on the bubble and are not listed as "official" villains. The former Disney Villains page contained henchmen, "angry villagers", and other characters that may have been mean but are not villains in the Disney universe. My concern is that this category will become as unwieldly as the former page turned into before every Villain instance required to be cited as such, instead of every character being placed there by someone who merely thought an act against the protagonist counted as "villainous". SpikeJones (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we should therefore include in the category characters officially recognized by Disney as "Disney Villains" and remove those who are only henchmen, rivals, angry people, etc. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done so. I have removed those who are not "official villains" according to the Disney archives and the Wikipedia article on Disney Villains. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged for speedy deletion - as a recreation of previously deleted content. If not speedied, then delete per the clear, consistent and overwhelming consensus against categorizing fictional characters as "villains". Otto4711 (talk) 19:04, 10 May 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_May_10&oldid=1074802936"