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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Arab" is a language not an ethnicity. The subcategories are categorized by country but all those countries are made up of people of different ethnicities. For example, Iraq is made up of Arabs, Kurds, Turkomans, Assyrians, etc. Same thing for Syria. Lebanon is has lots of people of European or Armenian descent. Morocco and Algeria have huge Berber populations, which are not Arab. This is the case for almost all "Arab" countries! TonyStarks (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Arabic language forms part of the definition of the Arab people but the latter is definitely considered as an ethnic group. Pichpich (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Yes, many of these countries do have multiple ethnicities, but there are large number of their nationals who are Arabs. In Algeria 22% of the population are Berbers, but 77% are Arabic speakers. IN Morocco, the the proportions are 34% and 65%. In Libya, it was 9% and 64% (with 25% expatriates) - my source is from before the revolution. It will certainly be better to recategorise people to more specific categories, where possible, but these categories should remain until ALL subcategories have eben emptied. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In hindsight, maybe nominating for deletion was not the right the decision. However, a lot of work needs to be done on the cateogry to make it factually correct. For example, Dutch people of Moroccan descent was a subcategory of Dutch people of Arab descent .. that is incorrect. The majority of Dutch-Moroccan people are of Berber descent, while the categorization suggests that all Moroccans are Arab. Like I mentioned in the nom, the same can be said about Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. TonyStarks (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of national origin categories I see that, for instance, this category subsumes Category:People of Egyptian descent. Egypt is ethnically pretty mixed, and while it isn't likely that Elvis Perkins is, somewhere way back there, of some Nubian extraction, plenty of Egyptians are. National origin is a lot more objective, and this category serves almost entirely as a supercat of the national categories anyway. Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes it is also a linguistic term but, like Hispanic, is also used ethnically. Not really opposed to Mangoe's national origin suggestion though. We'd need to figure out how to handle historic countries though. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no definite Arab people, and this is creating a false sense of unity in a very diverse group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of these quotations are specific to the middle eastern conflict between Israel and its neighbors. Also, one should note that our article on the Arab world states, in the lede, that "[t]he term "Arab world" is usually rejected by those living in the region who do not consider themselves Arabs, like non-Semitic people such as the Kurds, and is resisted even more strongly by ethnic Berbers, because it implies that the entire region is Arab in its identity, population, and origin, whereas history stipulates that the original homeland of the Arabs is limited to the Arabian Peninsula in Asia." In other words, the term "of Arab descent" in this sense implies national origin, not ethnicity. That's why I prefer the national origin categories. Mangoe (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an either-or decision, as they are not mutually exclusive. Retaining this cat would not mean that any non-Arab people living in Arab countries would be included. And that issue can be addressed at the cat talk page, if necessary.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously used for more than just language. Any problems with individual article categorization needs to be fixed. CarolMooreDC 21:22, 13 February 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete The category is basically empty since it only contains the main article Neo-Confederate. Presumably the category is designed for neo-confederate historians and works. The problem is that this is not a neutral term nor one that is sufficiently well-defined to be the basis of a category. Pichpich (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking through the article there is a dearth of linked terms which could be added, so at this point I don't think the category could be populated. Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category can apply to any person or organization or issue that notable sources have stated are neo-confederate. Terms like anti-zionist, Islamist, anti-Semitism, communist or Holocaust denial aren't necessarily neutral either. There are a number of organizations in the Neo-Confederate article that could be used by this category. The fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center and other civil rights organizations have noted this movement means it is not something that was made up. Redhanker (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something, but the only two organizations listed (other than the SPCL, which I somehow doubt should be included) date from the 1800s and therefore couldn't possibly be "neo". Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The SPLC is a political group and however sympathetic I am to their cause, I do not think they choose to use this term solely because it's the most accurate. Now it's true that communist isn't a neutral term but it's very important to point out that we do not (contrary to your claim) categorize as a communist any person described as such in notable sources. Note for instance the absence of Barack Obama from Category:Communists. Pichpich (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category is at heart a POV cat that would be sued by some people to attack the views of others, who in general would deny the application of this label on themselves. It is used by outside academics to attack ideas they do not like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2012 (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. This is functionally a "merge" for the two articles in here, and a "delete" for all the redirects.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unneeded sub-categorisation of fictional elements. The majority of members are already in the parent cat and are redirects. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge & Untag Redirects once in a blue mooon I'll put a redirect with possibilities in a cat that doesn't apply to the whole article. But here we have a list article of characters with 15 redirects to that same article. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2012 (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: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support & Expand the Apple usage has become dominant and I can't see the cat being confused with the other usages on the disambig page. We should also change the punctuation for Category:IOS jailbreaking, the only subcat that uses a capital "I". RevelationDirect (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – if there is dab page then the word is ambiguous and clarity is required, particularly in categories. (I am fairly sure that category names - and (I thought) article names – are not supposed to copy non-standard capitalisation; in any case the category is Category:iOS (Apple), and iOS displays in it as IOS.) Oculi (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose highly ambiguous, consider the debates that occurred in renaming the IOS article itself. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2012 (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.
You should perhaps take the time to re-read WP:SMALLCAT. This is a perfect example of a category that WP:SMALLCAT says should be kept. Pichpich (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you're right. I think far too often we accept a categorization scheme as widely accepted and needing to apply to every article just because 1 or 2 editors created a lot of empty cats that aren't defining. That's not the case here though and I looked too quick; vote changed. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2012 (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:Adaptations of works by Tong Hua (writer)[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. No article in category; one potential article could be placed in category. —teb728tc 06:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's been time to populate this and it isn't. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's absurd to say that the category is empty since it has a non-empty subcategory (which should be upmerged here but that's a separate debate). This is a textbook example of a category that should be kept according to WP:SMALLCAT. It is small but it is part of a larger, well-established categorization scheme. Pichpich (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2012 (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:Adaptations of Startling by Each Step (novel)[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I am not myself convinced that the author of a novel on which a film is based is defining for the film. Every novel is categorised by its author. Is every novel-based film (or TV series) adaptation categorised by (1) its novel; or (2) the author of its novel? (Eg To Kill a Mockingbird (film) is not categorised in any Harper Lee categories and is simply categorised in Category:Films based on novels. This seems about right.) Oculi (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2012 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Does "an Italian DJ, remixer and record producer" really deserve his own category? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This category belongs to a notable person which has two sub-cats and two pages. I didn't find any incoherences with WP guidelines! May you please explain why did you nominate that? ●MehranDebate● 06:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed the subcategories somehow. I withdraw the nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe, last I checked, it was normal to have a cat for a musician who had more than one song/album with wp articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely not the case. Consider for instance the fact that Category:Categories named after American musicians only has 189 entries. American musicians with more than one album article on WP number in the thousands if not tens of thousands. Pichpich (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline – musician cats such as this with 2 subcats are sometimes kept and sometimes not. Oculi (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the case. Can you really find multiple examples of precedents where an eponymous category was kept solely because of the albums and songs categories? We can debate the wisdom of precedents but I think they overwhelmingly point to deletion in this case. Pichpich (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can show you many examples, but your above reason was acceptable for me and I agree that it will be a POINT if i use the examples! :) ●MehranDebate● 18:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a Navbox will be a much more satistactory navigation aid. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough to justify an eponymous category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2012 (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.
