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. Erik9 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Synonymous terms, with "avoidance" being basically a euphemism, or at least a POV term for those favouring the practice. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One is a crime and the other may not be. This may be an issue with usage in different countries. Unless there is some clear and convincing evidence to say that they are the same, I'll oppose the merge. But for right now I'll keep an open mind. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The two terms are not synonymous. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers; nom's comments are just wrong - they are also defined as different by the authorities in at least the US & UK, & I expect other countries. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Speaking for UK, there is an important tax case on this very point. Avoidance is the legal method of avoiding tax; evasion is the illegal method. Can't speak for other jurisdictions, so it may be a linguistic/regional difference. Twiceuponatime (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep No different in the US. Nominator should first be familiar with the subject. Suggest reading the main article Tax avoidance and tax evasionHmains (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as these are two separate topics. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 24 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.
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 (now listified). Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a defining characteristic of these countries. Robofish (talk) 05:45, 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.
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.
Support rename per local usage, as demonstrated by nearly every entry in the category. Alansohn (talk) 16:11, 24 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Performer by performance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:06, 22 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: To match the naming conventions applied by other Billboard charts (e.g. Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles) and make the name less ambiguous, as "Number-one singles in Europe" could refer to just about any European #1. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 12:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the nom, assisted by otters and, more recently, a clue-bat, is quite right. Occuli (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The article applies specifically to the Eurochart Hot 100, so the category should follow. — Σxplicit 19:12, 22 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:Alleged homophobic remarks by celebrities[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 deleted per nom. Garion96(talk) 11:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. WP:BLP. Should be speedied. meco (talk) 11:10, 22 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - as with any number of similar categories across the political spectrum, inclusion in this category is subject to POV and subjectivism. The same person may hold beliefs that others might consider politically "progressive" while holding other beliefs that others would consider "conservative" or "moderate" or whatever other label gets assigned. Otto4711 (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and reparent to Category:Politicians of the Vermont Progressive Party, with appropriate note, dropping Nancy whatever and adding Bob Kiss (done) & maybe others. It is usually a good idea to look at a category before nominating it for deletion, I find. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy Skinner was (badly) disambiguated, so I removed her from the category at the same time I fixed the references. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename etc per Johnbod. Occuli (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Johnbod, all the remaining seem to be from Vermont. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:40, 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:Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era[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: Ok, I'm sick and tired of the sniping back and forth. If anyone can explain to me why I shouldn't just discount everything said by anyone engaging in such bickering, I'll be waiting at my talk page. Discuss the topic, not the other people. No consensus. Kbdank71 14:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is an obscure and almost ungrammatical name; there has to be something in the vernacular that will communicate the same idea, but I'm at a loggerhead. Note: there is also a main article, so please move that as well if there is a consensus to rename. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is the only healthy option here, if you ask me. Debresser (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an essentially unhelpful category due to its scope. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why this is defining? I'll admit I looked at the category and the article and was totally confused. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy. The articles are entirely concerned with whatever contacts the subjects had with Muhammad & his followers. These individuals appear to have no other claim to notability (the tribes are have a little wider interest perhaps). Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - consensus against categorizing people based on association with other people is pretty clear. See relatives of the famous, group or club members, people by person. People are associated with any number of other people and categorizing on that basis will land the average biography article in enormous numbers of clutterful categories. Otto4711 (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't in fact see that this category is caught by these precedents. It is significant to note that in the immensely long debate over Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_28#Category:People_killed_by_order_of_Muhammad, which is certainly the closest parallel, not one of the huge list of participants mentioned these grounds for deletion as far as I can see. Also relevant is that this is the primary category for at least the articles in the main category, and probably for most in the sub-cats also. Johnbod (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the deleted category index didn't exist when the killed per Muhammad category was being discussed and considering that fewer than 20 such categories had been put up for discussion at that time (including several being discussed concurrently) it is possible, if not likely, that editors weren't aware of the previous CFDs. Regardless, in the intervening three years all of the additional people by association CFDs have come and gone and we are left with the existing consensus that strongly disfavors such categories. This category is an even looser association than most if not all of the deleted categories, which were generally at least anchored by a specific person or organization. This is tied to an entire religion. If the only "claim to fame" for some of these people is that they interacted with Muslims during a specific time frame, that strikes me as an argument to consider merging/deleting their articles for possible lack of notability. We've merged/deleted articles for contemporary relatives of the famous because notability is not inherited from one's relatives. ISTM that notability is even less likely to be inherited from members of a religion. Otto4711 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My proposed rename addresses exactly these points. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Contacts" is every bit as vague as the current name and suffers all of the same "associated with" problems as the current one. What level of "contact" is required to qualify one for the category, and if the only thing that one is known for is having "contacted" Muhammad, is one really notable in the first place? Otto4711 (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One is - would you ask that question about individuals named in the Gospels, I wonder? Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a real problem as WP:RS clearly states that mere mention does not confer notability. Otto4711 (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad as "a VIP of another religion". I like that. Yet another of the supposed dreaded slippery slope and one of the most poorly-formed examples of WP:WAX. Muhammad's interactions with the individuals and groups is probably the main defining characteristic of all of the entries in this category, and nothing you have offered demonstrates that this is not a defining characteristic. For most of these individuals we only know about them because of their interaction with Muhammad, and there is no other characteristic that even makes them notable. As I read through the articles in Category:Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era, I see that every article that I look at describes the individual based on their contact and connection with Muhammad. Mut‘im ibn ‘Adi is described as "a non-Muslim, uncle of the Islamic prophet Muhamamd and the chief of the Banu Nawfal clan of the Banu Quraish tribe", while Ubay ibn Khalaf is described in his lead sentenc as "a non-Muslim who was a contemporary and an enemy of Muhammad". If you can point to any article of any individual or group where similar connections are made to Billy Graham, Martin Luther King Jr. or Harvey Milk, your foolish examples might be justifiable. I will be more than happy to consider -- and almost certainly vote to delete -- any of your nonsensical counter-categories. You've offered no justification for deletion other than WP:IHATEIT. Alansohn (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The articles were created and/or extensively edited by the same editor who created the category, so it's hardly surprising that they would reflect the same slant on their subjects. Your continued false allegations of my motives and false characterization of my arguments is tiresome. Otto4711 (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems hardly surprising that an editor who has taken the time to create a series of articles might also want to group them together using a category as an aid to navigation. If there is an issue regarding the notability of any individual article, the place to go is AfD, as here we deal with definingness, and I think I have pretty solidly demonstrated that a defining characteristic (if not the only defining characteristic) of the persons and groups in these articles is their association with Muhammad, and again you offer no explanation of why this trait is not defining. I am unsure of what your motives are here, but none of the arguments you've offered have any relevance as to why *this* particular category should be deleted, though you have offered excellent arguments for why other unrelated categories should not be created. Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"An editor would like to group his articles together" is hardly a compelling justification for keeping the category. "They met So-and-so" is an unsound basis for categorization, whether "So-and-so" is Muhammad, Obama or Susan Boyle. My "motive" is nothing more than this is a poor basis for a category, despite the various and sundry aspersions that certain editors don;t quite have the stones to own up to. Otto4711 (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, you're spinning in circles here. My statement about the creation of the category by an editor who also created many of the articles included there has absolutely nothing to do with being a reason to keep the category. It was a response to your conspiratorial claim that it should be deleted solely because "The articles were created and/or extensively edited by the same editor who created the category, so it's hardly surprising that they would reflect the same slant on their subjects." I have demonstrated rather clearly that a defining characteristic of the individuals included in this category -- if not their only defining characteristic -- is the fact that these individuals interacted with Muhammad during his lifetime. If you can identify individuals with a similar basis for being defined by interaction with another individual, go ahead and create it and allow all of us to deal with it under its own terms. That you manufacture increasingly illogical counter-categories to no avail only provides further evidence of how defining this category is. Otto, your persistent incivility has caught the notice of multiple admins, and I don't think that a rather shamelessly uncivil attack that implies that all of those voting to keep the category are doing so dishonestly but "that certain editors don;t [sic] quite have the stones to own up to" your charges, cannot possibly help your cause. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the accusation of incivility, right on schedule. Otto4711 (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that your response does not counter the issue that the category is defining, which seems to have been settled. The first step in dealing with your incivility problem is acknowledging that there is a problem. One of the first steps in that direction is self-censorship, and your removal of the words "phony baloney" from your reply above (see here) is a positive move in the right direction. Alansohn (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Non-Muslim contacts of Muhammad per User:Johnbod. As he often accuses others, Otto appears to be confusing notability and definingness. The individuals and groups included in this category are all notable. If Otto4711, or anyone else, believes that the articles cover topics that are not notable then the next step is AfD, not CfD. That these individuals and groups interacted with Muhammad is a strong defining characteristic of all of the articles included here. If anyone believes that some entries don't belong here, those borderline cases should be addressed on their respective talk pages. IHATEIT strikes again. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not every instance of suggesting that a category be deleted is a case of WP:IHATEIT, any more than every instance of your wanting a category retained is WP:ILIKEIT. These continual attempts to reduce discussions to such simplistic terms does little to nothing to advance the dialogue. Otto4711 (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't categorize someone's contacts by their religion. Especially as I understand that many Muslims consider Biblical figures predating Muhammad as Muslims. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (certainly don't delete). Founders of world religions are special, and a higher level of scrutiny into their lives and activities can be justified than would be justifiable for, say, current leaders of the same religions or major contemporary political figures. __meco (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Non-Muslim contacts of Muhammad per User:Johnbod. For a figure as significant as Muhammad, such as category should be appropriate. I suspect that it will in fact never be a large one. it should not include those who adopted Islam in his life. The point is that this will include people by whom he may have been influenced. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are we waiting for before closing this? It's rapidly approaching two weeks and there is clearly no consensus for deletion, certainly not based on policy. Alansohn (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contacts with religious leaders is not generally defining. The stature of the leader is not the issue except that it makes creating categories of this nature POV since it becomes subjective when a leader has sufficient stature to make this type of category justified. Remember that this is about contacts made by this person. We are not deleting the parent category. A rename probably would require a major cleanup so deletion and recreation of a better named, more focused category is an option. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Contacts with religious leaders is not generally [emphasis added] defining." Agreed. But if you take a look through the articles in this category, the interaction with this particular religious leader is the primary (if not only) defining characteristic of the individuals and groups included. While I do enjoy the assertion of a claim that there is a violation of POV here, what you describe is in reality the decision that must be made by any editor when creating any category (or article, or anything else in Wikipedia). Why does this particular trait deserve a category and not some other similar characteristic? Calling this process POV guts all of Wikipedia, and has absolutely no relevance to retention or deletion of this particular category. It essentially amounts to WP:WAX turned into a claim of a POV issue. I must also take issue with the We had to destroy the village to save it approach in which the only possible way to address the purported issues is to toss this category into the garbage heap, with the inevitable result that even the best faith effort to recreate it to satisfy the unspecified concerns would follow the garden path to speedy deletion as a recreation of a deleted category. We've shown that this particular category is strongly defining and we need to show legitimate policy reasons why this particular category should be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 16:58, 4 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.
