Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Samara Oblast[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. ~ Rob13Talk 18:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from Tolyatti and Samara the other cities in the oblast are way too small to create a similar list. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except the mentioned cities, there are another two settlements with more than 100.000 population. Anyway, in my opinion, it’d be better to keep the special category for appropriate articles than merge it to a broader-scope category and make it messier.
(as nom) Agree to that. I have adapted the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the opinion that the existing structure helps to allocate the lists by geographical location more accurately and has real capacity to be more populated in the future. Is there a wiki-rule which requires from us to collapse such structures of categories? Leonid Dobrov (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are meant to facilitate easy navigation between related articles. Navigation is made unnecessary cumbersome by creating multiple category layers each with very little content. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing indeed. That category will only ever contain an additional a list for Rostov-on-Don and that will be it. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2019 (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:The Twilight Zone Guest Appearances[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror. These are just examples; it could also be something much better. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 08:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a performer by performance category, which is a classic example of a non-defining category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:PERFCAT. If we categorized actors/actresses by doing one episode of Murder She Wrote, Law & Order, or Love Boat, the category clutter would be overwhelming. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2019 (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:Egyptian Premier League footballers[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 per nom. There is a clear consensus that this should be "players", not "footballers". The arguments for renaming this to "Players in the Egyptian Premier League" to avoid ambiguity are not without merit, but they have been countered by arguments that the wider category tree treats similar categories as the nominator suggested. No prejudice against a wider nomination of all potentially ambiguous categories involving national-specific "Premier Leagues". ~ Rob13Talk 18:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Footballers isn't the correct word to use here. Most of the "league players" categories like this one, if not all of them, ends with "players". For example, We have Category:Premier League players, Category:Bundesliga players, Category:Qatar Stars League players, and many other examples; and because of that I believe that this one should match rest of the categories. Ben5218 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Occuli to make it clear we are categorizing by the league played in, not by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: But that won't match the naming system all other leagues use. Plus, there are already some categories with a similar name like the ones I mentioned above. Don't you think that it would be better if this category's name is changed the naming system all other leagues use? Ben5218 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should rename all those other categories as well. We need precesion in naming categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the basketball league in Egypt is more commonly referred to as the Basketball Super League (دوري السلة السوبر المصري) rather than the Basketball Premier League (دوري السلة الممتاز المصري). Because of that, I believe that anyone who would search for Egyptian Premier League would be looking for the football league, since it's way more popular than the basketball league. Ben5218 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It rather the naming of the whole system. The Serie A had namesake basketball (and other sport) competition in native language, while in English language the football competition certainly is the primary topic, so that Serie A players is reasonable naming without much assumed knowledge to other reader. For club, any club ending with FC, either association football or other rule football, "Category:foo FC players" is a reasonable naming due to the FC. It may applies to FK, AC, CF (despite CF in Italian can stand for women's football, which differ from Spanish CF = FC) for assumed knowledge on the meaning of the affix . The naming of "Category:foo league players" actually require assumed knowledge one by one which sport the league was. Matthew hk (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2019 (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 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: Asian-American authors rather than books. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to make sure it is clear. Although I have my doubts about all of these being actual things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC
Oppose. I notice that these categories are currently subcategories of, say, Category:Pakistani-American culture through Category:Pakistani-American literature. What troubles me with the nomination is that it implies that we would then have Pakistani/Japanese/Filipino-American authors, which I do not think would be right. We currently only have only descent categories, many of which are borderline according to WP:OCEGRS. If someone is Pakistani-American and writes books, do they necessarily convey a Pakistani-American theme? Can they not be about computing, crime, love, life and everything, and does this make them part of Hyphen-American culture? Similarly, do you need to be Italian to open an Italian-American restaurant? I don't think so. The scope of these categories are not the same, and novels are better classified by theme or sub-genre (or not at all) than by perceived ethnicity of the author. Place Clichy (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. The articles in the respective categories may need some checking to verify that the proposed theme is really the context. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support the rename to culture, but with a clear review to make sure all the works belong at the target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, while there is a Culture of Asian Americans, there are sub-cultures of the different ethnicities which make up the pan-ethnic Asian American definition, given the different histories of the different Asian American ethnicities.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Manual split (with partial overlap) between "Novels by X authors" and "Novels about X culture". We have two different parent categories with very different purposes. I think both the Category:American novels by ethnic background and Category:Novels about race and ethnicity trees have encyclopedic merit. There is substantial academic writing about the stylistic differences between writers of different races and ethnicities, even when they are writing on topics unrelated to race and ethnicity. That clearly passes WP:OCEGRS. I would not want to get rid of a perfectly valid set of categories that allows exploration of such a topic just because we have a separate partially-but-not-completely-overlapping useful category. I don't see WP:OVERLAPCAT as an issue here, given the diversity of topics that authors from any given ethnicity may write on. Pinging earlier participants to consider this possibility. @HandsomeFella, Johnpacklambert, Place Clichy, Marcocapelle, and RightCowLeftCoast: ~ Rob13Talk 18:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment: That's absolutely a possibility. We need to go through the articles manually anyway. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced of the merit of categorizing of novels of ethnic authors together if they do not contain a strong ethnic theme. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if the author is notable enough, they should have a category for their novels (especially if they have at least a have dozen notable novels), and that category can be subcategorized under Novels by x ethnicity authors. Just my 2 cents.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment, a notable novel may be written by an individual who is of an Asian American ethnicity, but that does not mean that that novel is about the culture which that author is a member of.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment, request for closure of the discussion posted on the administrators noticeboard. 22:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
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:speedy delete. Tracking categories now empty because tracking has been restructured looks to me like a WP:G6 issue. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:07, 4 January 2019 (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:Capacitive touchscreen mobile phones[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.
Nominator's rationale: Category created when capacitive touchscreen was a novelty. Now this is expected from any touchscreen device and would require all phones created in the last two decades to be included if we aimed to be complete. uKER (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2019 (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:Battles won by Indigenous peoples of the Americas[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:listify. ~ Rob13Talk 18:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category does not fit into any wider battles-won-by category scheme (in fact, this category currently has no parents). Battles are already categorized by date/location/war etc (and various combinations of those) so this categorization is unnecessary. Many battles don't have a clear winner so this isn't a good way to categorize. If anyone thinks we should categorize (all) battles by winner (and loser?) then that should be discussed at WP:MILHIST first. The category could be listified.
@DexDor: Hello, I created this category. I am all for converting it into a list and also agree with the capitalization change. I created this list because I think it is of high importance.
Delete So if we have a battle where the Aztecs defeated the Tlaxcalas, it goes here right? What about a battle where Briths and Iroquois fought French and Potawatomi? This is a very, very problematic way to categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: I think we should delete the category and replace it with a list (note, I created this category but I am a very casual contributor and in retrospective it was a bad idea) Retinoblastoma (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per nom. I notice that category creator is also in favour of this outcome. Place Clichy (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2019 (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. ~ Rob13Talk 18:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there is only an eponymous article that is already in Category:Polish confederations. The subcategory should be kept but does not need this category as a parent, especially not because there is a direct link to the Radom Confederation article in the header of the subcategory page. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now It's been years since the category was held anticipating translation of articles from Polish Wikipedia. If and when that happens, we can recreate the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2019 (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:merge per nom. ~ Rob13Talk 01:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support all but permit re-creation if lots of Protestant churches suddenly start being constructed in Spain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is not that there are not any non-Catholic Churches in these places. The issue is that by and large these non-Catholic churches are in general not notable. The vast majority of churches are not notable. For example The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prbaobly has over 10,000 Church buildings, of which I would doubt 100 are notable. The same applies for many Evangelical and Baptists Churches, although not quite to as high an extent. In the case of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this is partly because so much of the worship of the Church is focused on the 161 temples of the church, which are notable. In the case of the unnumbered but probably in excess of 100,000 Pentecostal churches worldwide, it is because so many of them are small congregations numbering in the tens in congregant count.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support All Per nom and JPL's comments above. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and the comments above. Ben5218 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2019 (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:New South Wales Stations/Wharves with map[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. ~ Rob13Talk 05:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is populated by articles that have had an external link showing a map of connecting buses in the area. There are endless ways public transport infrastructure articles can be categorised by, but usually it is kept to a fairly high level; Stations in Sydney, Wharves opened in 1923 etc. This category is doing so by features of the article, rather than features of the subject matter, so really an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. JCN217 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template allows users to know which articles have maps without having to look up each individual article.Fleet Lists (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obsure category, bit like having a category for articles with a commons gallery. Rhodes88 (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2019 (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:rename. ~ Rob13Talk 05:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support because x86 is correct when talking about computers and X86 means something else. Levivich (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2019 (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:African-American Ivy League academics[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of any of its members per WP:CATDEF; non-notable intersection of race and educational affiliation. General IzationTalk 03:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/WP:CATDEF Natureium (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the nature, history/creation and organization of the Ivy League, the university system of the US, and its historical exclusion of the African-American in not just attendance/matriculation, but in academic study, research and value: (Columbia University JUST literally a few weeks decided to create a department for African and African-American studies, thus opening up a whole new field, industry, research and jobs for this particular group, African-American academics at the Ivy League). Plus with the history/creation and organization of the African-American construct as an ethnicity (it is NOT a race), it is definitely a defining characteristic. Know any? Just ask them, and the lists that are constantly created in publications, journals, alumni, professional, and alumni orgs, etc. LumaNatic (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per WP:EGRS: Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic.Marcocapelle (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear violation of ERGS categories. The two suggested upmerge categories should in no case have any direct content. Academics are connected with a specific school, not an athletic league (that is what the Ivy League is), and should be categorized at Category:Harvard University faculty, Category:Dartmouth College factulty etc. Beyond that, academics should be categorized by their specific field of expertise, and should only in such cases be in ERGS categories if say Category:African-American historians or Category:African-American physicists is justified by the specific ERGS guidelines. In fields where ERGS guidelines do not justify an African-American sub-cat, we should not put people in an undifferentiated academics category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'NOTE: Those advocating for Delete seem adverse to documenting the US/West's history of discrimination, and thus seem disingenuous. There is no need to follow a "rule" or "law" that seems to have been made in error, or at the very least seems intent on white-washing history. Wikipedia has no place replicating such practices. These are historical, cultural facts, and these categories represent such, as an encyclopedia should. Wikipedia serves no purpose in omitting this.-LumaNatic (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely welcome to document the history of discrimination in the United States in the article realm, by writing documented detailed nuanced articles. It is not at all welcome to try and do so by placing randomly selected people in stigmatising categories. Place Clichy (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPL and other comments above. First, Ivy League is an athletic conference, and we don't do "Big South academics" or any other categorization of academics/alumni by their school's athletic conference. It's trivia. Second, the Ivy League was established in 1954; discrimination against AA in academia goes back much, much farther than that. I fail to see how the Ivy League has a special place in the history of anti-AA discrimination in academia. Indeed, I imagine most AA in history who were discriminated against by colleges and universities were discriminated against by non-Ivy League colleges and universities (since the Ivy League only has eight schools in it). Third, I don't see why an AA academic at an Ivy League school should be categorized as "Ivy League" instead of as "AA academic" or "AA academic from [school]". An AA academic from MIT or CalTech is no less impressive or important than an AA academic from the Ivy League. Fourth, the editor who created this category is, per his userpage, a graduate fellow and Wikipedian in Residence at an Ivy League school. I'm not sure if COI applies but it still seems a little self-promotional. AA academics are important, but the Ivy League is not. Levivich (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete blatant provocation and misuse of Wikipedia. By pretending to be an activist against discrimination, the exact opposite result is reached. Place Clichy (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/John Pack Lambert. Ben5218 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per General Ization. Natureium (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the nature, history/creation and organization of the Ivy League and the history/creation and organization of the African-American construct as an ethnicity (it is NOT a race) - and the historic exclusion of such a group from the educational system, of which the Ivy League is the pinnacle, it is definitely a defining characteristic. Know any? Just ask them, and the lists that are constantly created in publications, journals, alumni, professional, and alumni orgs, etc. ~LumaNatic (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A number of these may be nominated for deletion as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I most definitely concur with Marcocapelle here. While some ethnicity categories are beneficial, most ethnic intersection categories are a nuisance, for reasons well explained at WP:OCEGRS. Place Clichy (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's the combination of 'Ivy League' and ethnicity which is a bad idea. Moreover 'Ivy League alumni' was deleted at cfd in 2012. Oculi (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very strong delete We do not subcategorize any alumni by ethnicity. This is a horrible idea and will start a horrible precedent. There is a much stronger argument to have Category:Jewish Ivy League alumni because of the anti-Jewish quota system. Also considering the current admission practices of the Ivy League, Category:Asian and Asian-American Ivy League alumni would highlight the group most distriminated against in current admission practices.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Abandon the play at oppression olympics. All of these groups have been systemically and institutionally excluded from education in the US, and the western education system at large, and thus Wikipedia should reflect these historical (and present day) discrimination if it is to be an accurate encyclopedia. Those advocating for Delete seem adverse to documenting the US/West's history of discrimination, and thus seem disingenuous. There is no need to follow a "rule" or "law" that seems to have been made in error, or at the very least seems intent on white-washing history. Wikipedia has no place replicating such practices.-LumaNatic (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LumaNatic:Thom Hartmann mentioned on one of his radio/TV shows that he once paid a visit to the Heritage Foundation,as he looked around he saw banks of interns sitting at computers, those that could see were busy editing wikipedia. From the amount of votes to delete categories dealing with minorities and White Supremacy and comments at Teahouse. I find validation of his observations. If not Heritage interns, then fellow travelers sharing the same bias. Not all of course, but enoughOldperson (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons detailed in my !vote at the AA IL academics nom above. To summarize: IL is an athletic conference not an academic subcategory; IL is fairly recent (1954) and the history of anti-AA discrimination in academics goes back much father, and is much broader, than just the IL; and, AA IL alumni are no more "special" than non-IL AA alumni. Levivich (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete blatant provocation and misuse of Wikipedia. By pretending to be an activist against discrimination, the exact opposite result is reached. Place Clichy (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is lots of bias present in the attempts to defend this category. The main problem is this is a blunt instrument and is constucted with ignorance to the fact that the point of Wikipedia is not to "right great wrongs".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2019 (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.
