< January 5	January 7 >

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: Roughly delete. I note that List of Unificationists also contains a section for former members. Kbdank71 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Former Unificationists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is not very useful. Out of the thousands or even millions of former Unificationists (members of the Unification Church) in the world only four have been included in this category. The category was removed from Josette Sheeran, who left the Unification Church for a successful career as a diplomat. It seems like the category is only applied to "controversial" people. Successful people don't get it, and of course ordinary people don't have a WP bio at all. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - This appears to be a legitimate category -- no different in principle than any of its 16 sibling categories in Category:People by former religion. You've suggested that it's being misused -- could you please elaborate and give us specifics that bear out that assertion? Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are the 4 people with the category: Richard A. Cohen controversial "ex-gay" activist, Steven Hassan controversial "anti-cult" activist, Nansook Hong author of a controversial book criticising Rev and Mrs Moon, Jung Myung Seok controversial leader of a breakaway sect, convicted of rape. As I said there are many thousands of other former members, very few of whom are in any way controversial. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm still not seeing what this proves. Sure, controversial people get more attention across the board than non-controversial people -- that's neither more nor less true here than elsewhere. But your comment suggested that the category was being used selectively -- only applied to "controversial people", and not applied to "non-controversial people". So far, you haven't addressed the second part of the equation. Cgingold (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Josette Sheeran is an example of a non-controversial former Unificationist. The category was removed from her article. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note - this was discussed before with others in the CFD of 2007 July 23, inconclusively. (Josette Sheeran is clearly a valid member of this category.) I would personally prefer an upmerge to Category:Unificationists as it is not customary to distinguish between former/current members of categories. Occuli (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That's generally true, but we have built up an extensive category structure at Category:People by former religion, which seems to have pretty fairly strong support as a valid mode of categorization. Cgingold (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would question all of the the former religion categories. Once you get beyond Paul of Tarsus, ex-Jew, and Martin Luther. ex-Catholic, there are very few people who are defined by their leaving a religion.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There were other related cfd discussions around Jan 2007. I'm not sure that 'strong support' is a fair summary; some were 'delete' and others 'no consensus keep'. Occuli (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to calibrate my choice of words carefully ("pretty strong"), possibly not well enough -- so perhaps "fairly strong" is a better description. In any event, (some of) these categories have come up for review elsewhere (sorry, I don't have the links), and over time the result has been the construction of the category structure that you now see. Cgingold (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I think that both this (if kept) and its parent should be renamed to Unification Church members instead of Unificationists since Unification is not about the Church, and several movements use(d) that name. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I would agree with this suggestion vis-a-vis the proper naming of the categories. Cgingold (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• General comment From what I've noticed "former religion" categories are usually added to articles in order to push an agenda. Come to think of it so are most edits to WP's articles on religion. It's either by promoters or detractors of whatever religion is being talked about. A commercial encyclopedia, on the other hand, can hire someone to write an informative, neutral article. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only good religion article is Dogs in religion. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm fairly certain I have more surviving edits critical of the Unification Church than any other editor on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I point out religious bigotry and hidden agendas when I see them. This category was created by an editor who was both [1] the most zealous (and unfair) anti-Unification Church crusader Wikipedia has ever seen, and [2] the most difficult, sneaky, and deceitful editor I've encountered in my nearly 3 years editing Wikipedia. Except for those former Unificationists who are now on the "right" side of the ingroup-outgroup divide ("anti-cult"), the purpose for having the category seems to be similar to the purpose for having a yellow star of David patch - to identify the person in a way that can discredit him or her. An ex-religion category for 3 people? This category, which was clearly born from religious bigotry, should not be subject to the principle of "keep because of no consensus to delete"! I have to conclude Strong Delete. -Exucmember (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. Kbdank71 15:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Cal Poly Sport Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete A non-defining minor "award"/hall of fame induction. A list could be created, but right now only contains one article, so may not be worth it at this point unless someone can add some more to the list. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete – minor is an overstatement. Occuli (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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 the discussion this merge does not prevent recreation of the deleted category based on broader discussions on the topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Criminal justice in Oregon to Category:Penal system in Oregon

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is the only by-jurisdiction category of its kind in Category:Criminal justice. (It's weird, but it's another Oregon one—the outliers always seem to be about Oregon even though there are different users that create them all.) Right now it contains articles about 3 ballot initiatives that dealt with criminal justice issues in the state. The contents and concept seem to fit well in the already existent penal system category. If kept this would represent significant duplication of concepts. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, I created this category and then realized that Category:Penal system in Oregon already existed, so I stopped populating it. Thank you for nominating here, I meant to bring it up myself.

I am no expert, but it seems that "criminal justice" is a more apt term than "penal system." I believe it's more inclusive, and will include articles that might not fit within "penal system." For instance, Oregon Attorney General, and Oregon Ballot Measure 57 (2008) are both highly relevant to criminal justice in the state, but neither is directly related to the penal system. The former may argue for certain punishments based on law, and the latter may outline penalties for certain crimes; but neither seems to belong in the category to me. So, I guess I'd lean toward the new name I used, but I'm interested to hear other perspectives. -Pete (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do have some good points. Rather than assessing which term was more appropriate, my nomination was pretty much based on inter-category consistency in naming, but the issues you raise are points that could be considered in a proposal to change the now-existing category names or structure. In any case, I don't want this nomination to prevent future use of this name in a broader category system. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. What do you think is the best way to proceed? We've been doing a lot of work lately on Oregon government stuff (especially ballot measures), and it would be good to get articles categorized correctly as we go. -Pete (talk)

I'm unsure right now. I suppose "criminal justice" categories could be created for each state, with "penal system" as a subcategory, but that might be too much overlap between them. Alternatively, I suppose someone could propose changing all of the "penal system" categories to "criminal justice" ones, but I'm not sure about how I feel about that proposal myself. I'm kind of needing some input from others on this as I'm having a hard time deciding what the best course would be in that respect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I've been thinking it over too. I think it might be best to look for a more general topic to do "by state," and then let states do further breakdowns however it makes most sense to editors of those WikiProjects. (Not sure if this is how "by state" stuff is ordinarily handled in CFD, but it seems to me like it should be.) With that in mind, I wonder whether Category:Crime in Oregon might be the best pick. In Oregon, we might elect to have both Category:Criminal justice in Oregon and Category:Penal system in Oregon as subcategories, but another state might break things down differently. But the reader would be well served, in the sense that finding crime-related content across states would be pretty easy. -Pete (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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: honorary delete. Kbdank71 15:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:People who have recieved honorary degrees from Harvard University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A non-defining "award" of sorts—information should be in a list, not a category. The people who receive these are defined by the reasons they are receiving the honorary degree, not by reception of the honorary degree itself. This is another instance where unchecked proliferation of categories like this for every possible university could potentially lead to category clutter on a massive scale, since those receiving these honors usually get them from multiple schools. Similar categories for other university honorary degrees have been deleted:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_16#Category:Honorary_doctoral_degree_holders

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_15#Category:Honorary_Doctors_of_the_University_of_Chicago

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_10#Category:Honorary_doctors_of_Anglia_Ruskin_University — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm going to make a wild guess that President Obama has this category. :-) Delete because is could never be a defining category. As the nominator said, it is what the person has done so that he or she is so honored that is defining. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Obama does not have one, but John Lithgow does. See, you have to be accomplished to receive one, don't you know ... :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Honorary Keep? Oh, but that wouldn't be very meaningful, would it? Okay, I guess I'm gonna have to go with Delete per nom then. Seriously, if we were to allow cats like this to proliferate (and cats do have big litters), the category clutter on many pages would reach unimaginable levels. To take one example, Kofi Annan has received at least 20 honorary degrees, as documented in his article. And he's far from alone. Cgingold (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per many precedents (and per poor spelling). Occuli (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• If anything, at least offer correct spelling. Whataworld06 (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete cat clutter (or litter?), non defining, and if allowed there should also be "real" degree cats to complete the category domain . . . Peet Ern (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. They're more about getting a 'celeb' to turn up at graduation ceremonies than genuine achievement. The same can easily be achieved by lists. Kbthompson (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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; no opposition and will conform to new meta-article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename Category:Wilmington metropolitan area → Category:Cape Fear region

Nominator's rationale: Proposed renaming to reflect the newly merged article of Wilmington metropolitan area and Southeastern North Carolina into a more notable and verifiable name: Cape Fear (region). "region" should be lower case, to differ from the actual Cape Fear (headland) or Cape Fear River, but reflect that the word "region" is not always used. This is to fit in with the rest of the categories in Category:Regions of North Carolina. Will format like Category:Piedmont Triad and Category:The Triangle, North Carolina. Will include more articles into the category other than just cities (likely to put cities into county categories) like Cape Fear Wildcats, Cape Fear (headland), USS North Carolina, Green Swamp (North Carolina), etc. --Triadian (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. Sportspeople can be fixed/changed upon the completion of the sportpeople CFD. Kbdank71 15:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming (see categories in drop-down box): (if you dare)

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. This is the follow-up to the discussion where it was decided by consensus to use "Washington (U.S. state)" in category names when the state of Washington is referred to. This will work in the same way "Georgia (U.S. state)" is used. These are the categories that the new standard applies to in order to match Category:Washington (U.S. state). I've tried to be precise, but feel free to fix any typos you may find. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename All This is a great idea. Let's get rid of a little of WP's USA-centrism. In the world George Washington is more imporant than Washington the state and Georgia the nation is more important than Georgia the state. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename All per nom & per my remarks in the previous CFD. Cgingold (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename All per nom & per my remarks in the previous CFD. (And congrats to the nom.) Occuli (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename all. Whee - good work GO: this makes my "Canoer" noms look puny. Please remind me when this one's fixed up to nominate the stub categories in the same way over at SFD. Grutness...wha? 22:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Finally clearing this matter up. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom, per globalise. Peet Ern (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom, and WP:NCCAT, Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.. Neier (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. If this rename happens then Category:Washington sportspeople to Category:Washington (U.S. state) sportspeople should be changed to Category:Sportspeople from Washington (U.S. state) per this discussion. If not then this needs to be renamed here and then added into the mentioned discussion for a likely second rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Category:German-American businesspeople
• Category:Asian American businesspeople
• Category:Vietnamese-American businesspeople

Merge all to Category:American businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: I noticed that this category subject has been touched on before(Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_6#American_businesspeople_by_ethnicity.; however, this specific category (along with others) were not directly named. I think it follows along the lines of the original decision plus I think it is just fair to all the other categories that were deleted. Krushdiva (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Comment Wait, Northern Mariana Islands and Guam businesspeople isn't the same thing at all. It's categorizing by region, not ethnicity. Suggest you remove those two from the list. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Reply Suggestion noted. I removed them from the list. Any feedback on the others? Krushdiva (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge If Category:Jewish-American businesspeople and the like have been merged, yes, these seem to have been forgotten and should follow suit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. Kbdank71 15:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Lists of slums to Category:Slums

Nominator's rationale: There doesn't appear to be any Lists of slums. The 2 articles in this category are not lists. Merge to main Slums category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom Kbthompson (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. The arguments here are mainly the same used for the deletion of Category:Conservatives; "liberal" means something different based upon who you are and what country you are speaking of. Kbdank71 15:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Liberals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is very general and has definitions that vary globally. It would be better to have only categories that are country specific or otherwise geographically specific. THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTE: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_13#Category:Liberals previous discussion Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep for sub-cats only. We do have "categories that are country specific or otherwise geographically specific" as well as Category:Classical liberals, but need this one to pull those together - the differences are by no means so great that they should be left isolated in national categories. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as a global master cat, per Johnbod, with a reminder to editors that in most cases articles should not be categorized into the master cat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - for the same reasons that Category:Conservatives was deleted recently. The definition of "liberal" is fluid so assigning someone to that label will of necessity involve an unacceptable degree of POV. It is possible for the same person to hold views on some political subjects (e.g. civil rights) that would be considered "liberal" while holding views on other subjects (e.g. tax policy) that would be considered "conservative". A classic example is Barry Goldwater. He would not likely be described by many as "liberal", yet he came to loathe the neo-cons who took control of the Republican Party and held positions on some issues (e.g. gays in the military) that are anathema to most "conservatives". All of these issues point to the conclusion that this category should be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The definition varies globally, but the major divergence is really a US vs the world one. I wouldn't mind a note excluding American liberals entirely, but I don't see why the rest of the world should suffer just because Americans can't bring "left-wing" to cross their keyboards. On the other hand, the US definition is not utterly different to other global ones. No political category is going to contain very precisely conformed views. Deleters need to address what will happen to the sub-categories, which will be left unhelpfully separed. All this was gone into a year ago, in a much better attended & argued debate than (given current trends here) this is likely to be. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No one and nothing is going to "suffer" if this category is deleted. If "liberal" is defined elsewhere based on being a member of a party that has the word "liberal" in its name, then categorize people by their party affiliation. As for the subcats, each of them has at least one additional parent so deleting this category will hardly cast them adrift 'pon the stormy seas. Otto4711 (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete There is no world-wide definition of "liberal" that would make the category useful. I think this would even be a problem if used as a super category. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I believe it also conforms with the rationale for deleting the "Conservatives" category. Therefore it promotes consistency. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 20:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment And yet we have the super-cat Category:Socialists. Why one rule for Socialists and another for Conservatives and, if the AfD is successful, Liberals? The meaning of the term socialist varies globally, too. I realize WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no argument, but the Socialists cat has been around since 2004, with no sign of ever having been nominated for deletion, and I'm just trying to understand the qualitative distinction, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It probably has more to do with the fact that in the United States, calling someone a "liberal" is often used as a political attack. Therefore it is a "hot-button" word that is inherently subject to POV in the American context. Calling someone a "socialist" is also done in U.S. politics, but it's not nearly as common and not nearly as subtle an attack in the American context. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you. Just because Liberal is used as an attack word in the U.S., we can't have a category grouping all the Liberal party cats for the rest of the world? Wikipedia is not just for Americans. And I find the logic particularly twisted in that, because "Liberal" is the right-wing slur of the moment in the U.S. rather than "Socialist," a global Liberal party cat must go but the Socialist party cat can stay...? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your interpretation of what I said. Where did I say "socialists" should stay? Where did I suggest WP was for Americans only? I said nothing of the sort. Please re-read my complete comment (above and below) and don't impute your own meanings to it. You asked for a possible explanation of why "liberals" had been nominated but not "socialists". I provided a possible reason. You may not like the reason, but if you pursue the comparison line of reasoning it will be, as you said, of the WP:OTHERCRAP variety. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did read your argument, I assure you. To delete a global Liberal category because the term is used derogatively in the U.S. And that Socialist can stay because, you surmise, it's not as much a hot button term in the U.S. these days. I think that's a fair summary of what you've stated above. Regardless, on this one you have not persuaded me at all and this is getting needlessly belligerent. My Keep vote remains. Goodbye, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it's not a fair summary at all. You may have read it but you're sure not understanding it. You're reading way too much into a passing comment—somehow twisting it into a "rationale" for deletion, which it is not. I made no suggestion that the socialist one "can stay". I simply gave you a possible reason that [possibly American] WP users have nominated the "liberals" category and not the "socialists" category. It has nothing to do with my rationale for deletion, which is below. Americans may be touchy about the word more than "socialist". Thus, an American may tend to nominate this category but not the other one. That's all. Frankly, I'm disappointed but not surprised that a user can't respond to a query in a WP discussion with a possible or hypothetical rationale without having the rationale wrapped around his neck as his personal opinion. Not exactly a hotbed of nuance here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • • • Before I turn the computer off for the night I thought I'd add one last thing, to try to set things right. Good Ol’factory, I do not want to put words in your mouth or wrap anything around your neck, so forget the Socialist example. Sorry I ever brought it up. But I still do not get why a perfectly valid global category has to be deleted because it may be misapplied, especially by Americans. Couldn't we simply make it clear that this category is for parties that expressly self-identity as Liberal, and no other? And with that, good night. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's very kind of you to say and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll let someone else step in and answer questions now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. At the time of the previous discussion on the category, I didn't have a definite opinion (thus I didn't "vote"), but I have changed my mind on this now because of ensuing arguments that have been made elsewhere. The word has such a wide variety of meanings depending on the context—everything from classical liberalism to a person in a party called the "Liberal Party" to a fluid and sometimes-derogatory term of art in the U.S. If used as a parent category only, as suggested, we're grouping things by shared name that have little connection to each other beyond the use of a word. And if it's more than just a parent category for subcategories (which is how it is operating right now—it's actually placed on the articles of people right now), the category simply cannot be applied in a consistent and NPOV way. Really, there is not much different here than the considerations and relevant arguments involving past similar categories that were deleted like Former liberals and Conservatives. And of course the American ones have been deleted frequently, as with American liberals, American liberal politicians. Eventually we need to face up to the fact that some of these broad labels just don't work for categorization purposes in an encyclopedia that is used worldwide. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep This is a strong defining characteristic for the individuals so identified. The ample reliable and verifiable sources that use the term over and over again have no quibble as to the definition. There is virtually nothing that we can categorize that has a hard and fast global definition that every individual worldwide will agree to, and political categorizations are no different. Alansohn (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "There is virtually nothing that we can categorize that has a hard and fast global definition that every individual worldwide will agree to" We don't need "every individual worldwide", we just need a consensus of WP users, and there is no consensus for the meaning of "liberal" among them. But nothing? Really? What about Category:Turtles? Seems pretty solid to me. Or Category:Prime Ministers of Canada? Again, pretty solid. If you are serious, your expansive view of POV is impressive, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I trust reliable and verifiable sources far more than I trust you or any other editor. I try to eliminate the POV, that you, I and we all have by relying on these sources, and the millions of reliable sources out there have no trouble with the term whatsoever. It's only individual Wikipedia editors who seem to have a problem. I have yet to find a source that refuses to label individuals as liberal (or conservative) because of a lack of an ironclad definition acceptable by every person on this planet. Alansohn (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The unfortunate truth is that WP editors are the ones that apply the category based on sources (or not); it's not the impartial sources that do it automatically, and categories don't permit citations to those sources. Lists do though—Yay lists! I'd also question your faith in the NPOV nature of the way sources apply the term "liberal", though. They are written by people, too, and different publications apply it in vastly different ways. But if there is some standard that you've somehow discovered that all these "millions" of publications have no problem applying in choosing when to use the word, I think we'd all like to hear about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep. If 'liberal' can be used in WP articles to describe people, as it is, then it can be used in categories that collect articles about these people. Putting an article in a category which has liberal in the name because the article text contains the word 'liberal' is making no judgment whatsoever. It is rather mechanical. Done for the sake of helpful reader navigation (the purpose of categories) and nothing more. Hmains (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That approach scares me a little. The problem is, of course, that "liberal" is never added to the text of an article "mechanically". Categories shouldn't simply passively reflect the potential POV of article writers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Of course, categories should mechanically reflect what is in the articles. Articles are subject to references and citations; categories are not. There is no other criteria that can be used for categories except the article's contents--unless you want to insert the POV (unreferenced/uncited) of the category creator and deleter. Something that seems to be happening all too often here in these CfDs. Hmains (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, of course the application of a category is based on the article's contents. But it's not done in the blind, mechanical way you are advocating. At least it should not be done that way—apparently you do operate in this way, which is pretty scary. You have to evaluate the article data in the context of the category's definition, not just mechanically search for "key words". Otherwise we wouldn't even need real users to apply categories—we could have bots do it. But I suppose it's asking a lot to actually have users think about what they are doing. (I'm a little cranky with Hmains because I just spent a bunch of time going through Category:American anti-illegal immigration activists—which s/he created and populated—removing most of the many politicians s/he so categorized. They were apparently included in the cat because the politicians had come out in favor of the govt taking anti-illegal immigration measures. Holding a position on a political issue does not make a politician an activist, though. Unfortunately the "mechanical" approach failed to think this through and realise the mischaracterization!) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment re: Liberal & Socialist - I just want to point out that both of these words are widely flung about as pejorative terms in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. The real issue as far as categories are concerned is that, compared to "liberal", which has a range of meanings (some of them conflicting), "socialist" is pretty well-defined. Regardless of differences on specifics, all socialists support some form of socialized control or ownership of business and industry, which is the core principle of socialism. Cgingold (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, just like its deleted counterpart, Category:Conservatives, the term "liberal" is too vague and ambiguous and prone to equivocate unlike things. Liberal" has meant vastly different things between different countries, and between different times within the same country. Postdlf (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per the current consensus on related categories. I will then add that this delete should be viewed as a cleanup for someone to present a restructuring for all of these parent categories so that we can, if appropriate, collect related subcategories (note I did not say articles). I'm still concerned a bit about placing social liberals, religious liberals and financial liberals in the same parent category. The may be better parented by a category like Category:Liberalism and be restricted to articles on the topics and not for people at all. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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.