< November 5	November 7 >

November 6

Category:Actual event ballads

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: upmerge to Category:Songs based on actual events as no reason was offered for subdividing that category by song type. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 02:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Badly-titled and uneeded category. All articles should be moved into the parent. Lugnuts (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, Rename to Category:Ballads about actual events. However, I susopect that most traditional ballads (particuiarly Border ballads are actaully about real events. This may therefore not be a useful category, perhpas therefore Category:Ballads about 20th century events. I am not formally voting here (to keep or delete), as I am not a specialist in the area. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge per nom. Not a terribly relevant distinction between "songs" and "ballads" and in many cases the distinction is irrelevant. No good reason that I can see to have this subcategory of the main category for songs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ballads about actual events I've seen multiple television programs and articles in magazines and newspapers about the SS Edmund Fitzgerald, all of which were inspired by the fact that there is a ballad The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. That a ballad is based on an actual event is a strong defining characteristic of the song. If it is indeed "unknowable" that a particular ballad is based on an actual event, and the connection can't be supported by reliable and verifiable sources, it doesn't belong in this category. Alansohn (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a more relevant question perhaps is whether the parent needs to be broken down into song-type. If it is kept, I also don't understand why we wouldn't just use Category:Ballads based on actual events, which is how the parent is named. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:Ballads based on actual events per its parent, Category:Songs based on actual events. But I haven't yet seen a reason why that parent category should be subdivided by song type. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 13 November 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:Female gender barrier breakers

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Categorisation based on an incidental feature, which itself is subjective and ill-defined. --Xdamr^talk 23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: *Delete per WP:OVERCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This cat seems intriguing and potentially very encyclopedic. What categories does this overlap with? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 06:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category contains four BLPs of low notability. Organising this category smells of original research, which should be avoided. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the first one Moira Cameron is notable for this exact reason. It's difficult to see how this is OR. Occuli (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how do you objectively define "barrier breaker" or similar. Only use seems to be to lump together a bunch of disperate women whose achievements can be categorised better in other ways. Declan Clam (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Populate -- This is potentially an interesting category. For example, I saw a TV programme recently about the first female pensioner at Chelsea Hospital. No objection to rename, if a better name can be found. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Populate Standard for inclusion should be females who were notable as the first in their field or category and received press for it. Shannon Faulkner, for example, is only notable because of the fact she was the first female accepted to The Citadel, yet this is recognized as a major turning point. Maggie Cogan is notable for other reasons, but what made her initially notable back in the old Universal news reels was being the first female horse and carriage driver in Central Park, which made her a minor celebrity in New York. As such, this is a defining characteristic and a distinct and unique cultural topic; I don't see how they can be otherwise categorized as Declan Clam suggests. I also do not see how this is OR, since each of the people currently categorized are cited and notable as being the "first female to ...". Entire University courses are offered on the topic of gender equality and "first women". I admit the name may not be ideal, so if someone has a better one I'm all for it. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename so that inclusion criteria are clear or Delete. Current name is terrible. Suggest: Category:Female firsts. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to Category:Female firsts. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I suspect this is OCAT, because if the definition were interpreted and applied literally, this category would be incredibly large. Every single person in the lists linked to in List of the first female holders of political offices could be included, and those are just politicians. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see what is wrong with having a large category. This category covers a defining characteristic. And sub categories could be created as well. We have many many large categories. I 100% support renaming to Female firsts. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is wrong with large categories per se but there may be something wrong with an overbroad category that leads to a large category. It's like having Category:African American firsts—it's the kind of thing that is interesting and should be included in lists and bio articles, but at the end of the day there is very little held in common by Moira Cameron and Kim Campbell. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They both have one thing in common: they're both female firsts. :-) <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think that's essentially the equivalent importance-wise of saying that a duck and a telephone share a common identity because neither of them have handlebars. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But lacking handlebars isn't a unique social/cultural phenomenon and ducks and telephones don't have a cultural gender identity. Women were second-class citizens for hundreds of years, if not longer. University womens studies focus entire courses on women who fought and accomplished to obtain equality. Saying this isn't culturally significant or specifically unique is like saying it isn't relevant that Obama is the first African American president of the United States or that Indira Gandhi was the first female Prime Minister of India, or that Golda Meir was the first female Prime Minister of Israel. Perhaps the category could be split nationally, so that we have "American female firsts", "British female firsts", etc. That's more specific. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, 'twas a bit of a joke there; I see it was taken seriously. I am not saying this is not culturally significant. I am saying its broad nature does not make it amenable to being categorized on WP, just as we don't categorize Obama in an Category:African American firsts or an Category:African American racial barrier breakers. Being in such a category communicates nothing as to the reasons someone is in such a category, apart from the fact that they are a women. If you saw Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit in the category, it would be impossible to know why she's in there—is it for being the first woman cabinet minister of India, or the first female health minister in Asia, or the first female president of the UN General Assembly, or the first female who kicked Gurdeep Singh's ass in high school? This is why such a system is far more amenable to a list—you can actually explain why the person is being included in such a grouping. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Obama: WP:OTHERSTUFF. There could very well be an African American firsts category. Regarding Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, if she was categorized as a female first, the article would have to specify why she was a female first (whether it is Cabinet Minister or the first girl to kick Gurdeep Singh's ass). . In any case, the article would have to specify that this person is a female first. Otherwise, yes, anyone could just start throwing people in there, but that's matter for cleanup rather than CfD. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in WP:OTHERSTUFF: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument ..." Comparisons to what does and does not already exist and what has and has not been deleted in the past can be useful in deciding if something new should exist or not. It's not convincing to simply dismiss all such comparisons with recitation of OTHERSTUFF. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Voted above) Support rename to Category:Female firsts. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as undefinable. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is meant by "undefinable". Can you specify please? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider rename this is a strong defining characteristic for the individuals involved. All four of the entries in the category as I am writing are for individuals who are almost solely notable for being a gender barrier breaker. The argument that this is somehow "overcategorization" is rather readily addressed by looking at how the individuals are defined in reliable and verifiable sources. While every woman can be somehow described as a female first (e.g., First woman named Janet elected to the United States Congress from Arizona in a month without an "R"), we're looking to include here are those defined in reliable and verifiable sources as a female first. Alansohn (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not how the category is defined currently. And it's quite easy to find sources that describe people as the "first female x". But the fact that it is verifiable doesn't necessarily mean it's defining. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at the article included here, these women are not just a first woman to fill some role, they are defined by that first woman role and they are defined in reliable and verifiable sources as such. Editors are able to distinguish between sources that define a woman as a first and those that merely mention it. Barack Obama plays basketball, and there are ample sources (and even images) to prove it, but he is still not categorized in Category:African American basketball players because he is not defined as a basketball player. That there may be some debatable entries is a great reason to discuss inclusion of the article in question at its talk page, but it's a very poor excuse to delete the category. Alansohn (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So how does one determine purely from sources that something is defining? This seems to go to the nub of the problem. There's no foolproof way of demonstrating in a mechanical manner that they do. It's always going to be a judgment call for some cases. There is a difference between verifiability and definingness, and it's one that purely using sopurces will have difficulty in resolving. Sometimes we have to use brains and judgment, and if it becomes too much of a subjective exercise, then I believe that is a very good reason to delete a category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - But by this logic, how do we determine if anything is defining? It either has to be subjective or objective. If a reliable source says Sophia Karp was the first Yiddish theatre actress, then we put that in her article and categorize her. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and notability is established via reliable sources. A defining characteristic can be verified. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We've always had narrower criteria for what makes a good category than what can simply be documented within the text of an article. Verifiability is a prerequisite for all WP content, but it is just one requirement for categorization; it is not and cannot be the only one. Articles and categories would be a mess if we categorized every article by every verifiable fact contained within it. postdlf (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, which is why we categorize things based on a defining characteristic. Verifiable and defining, right? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That someone was the first woman X is frequently notable, often very notable; however, when X can be anything, the definitive properties of the categorization drop off considerably. I disagree that merely being verifiably cited as a first in a reliable source confers notability; a biographical profile may mention in passing the subject was the first female women's studies professor at Smith, but becoming so is not in the same realm as becoming the first female U.S. naval aviator, or the first woman to win a Nobel Prize in a science, or the first woman to play professional football (of any variety). Wait, you say, the category is for "male-dominated" positions, and surely women's studies professorships are not male-dominated? But then, how do we draw a distinction? Make it too narrow (women's studies professors at Jesuit schools in Australia) and the category overflows: first Morocco-born footballer to play for the French in the World Cup. Make it too broad and the number of "barrier breakers" falls. The real prize wasn't to become the first women's studies professor, it was to become a professor, as academia as a whole is male-dominated. All of this speaks to why there is no parent Category:Firsts; given the pervasive identity-based cheerleading across WP, this category is sure to spawn a vast tree of "barrier"/"ceiling"/"divide"/"wall"-overcomers that will of course diminish the value of the whole branch. I have myself noted any number of firsts in articles I've edited— "first Vietnamese-born bishop appointed to a see in the United States" sprung to mind— and have to think that however worthy the article subjects are, tend to think that for the true pioneers, not only will a pool as wide as "Female firsts" dilute that achievement, but reducing their life accomplishments to a mere milestone would ironically diminish them to their identity.- choster 16:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that merely being verifiably cited as a first in a reliable source confers notability Our own notability policy disagrees with you: Notability is established by coverage in reliable sources. I also do not agree with the statement that categorizing female firsts will somehow diminish their acheivements. The refusal to acknowledge the acheivement of being a female first, whether that was their direct intention or not (see WP:OR), would actually diminish, but this isn't material: These people accomplished something culturally significant and defining and this is worthy of categorization, which allows people reading Wikipedia to read articles about other female firsts, something that many many people have a great deal of interest in. Denying that the barriers exist is akin to holding ones head in the sand. They do exist, they're culturally notable and quantifyable, and just because someone else may try to abuse categories to further a political agenda doesn't mean we should throw the baby out wit hthe bathwater. Again, WP:OTHERSTUFF. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per choster's well-reasoned explanation. This will just equivocate unlike things. It is the sort of information that cannot be meaningfully presented without organization and explanative context. postdlf (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that the category equivocates unlike things, per my discussion with Good Olfactory above. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See choster's comments above about whether "first" is drawn narrowly or broadly. This category would include all "firsts" for women, no matter how specific in scope, and at every degree of accomplishment, in any field of endeavor, at any time in human history. Those included in this category were the first women to do...something. It is purely laudatory, not informative. postdlf (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why I initially named it "gender barrier breakers". That's more specific. The first woman to cook a fish isn't notable but the first female Astronaut is. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't merely a question of who is or isn't notable and why. The issue is whether there is a concise and coherent basis for grouping them together in category form. I don't see how you can limit "barrier breaker" to only the first to do it; that presumes that the barrier always ceases to exist, and a field of accomplishment ceases to be male-dominated, after only one individual breaks through it (Geraldine Ferraro would say otherwise). Just because they were not the first does not mean that it wasn't significant for them to break through it. So we have a threshold problem. And so this will inevitably lump everyone who broke any gender barrier in any context, to whatever degree. So we'd not only have the three women nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director, but also arguably every woman director, as film directing overall is still a male-dominated field. We'd have the two women nominated for U.S. Vice President by a major political party, but also arguably every woman to run for U.S. president regardless of how far in the process they made it. And really, to be fair, every female American politician deserves to be considered a gender barrier breaker, and probably those in every other country as well even at present. Every female law firm partner with an article, every female judge, every female CEO, every female soldier, and probably even to this day most, if not all, female stand-up comedians. All lumped together in one undifferentiated category. Sandra Day O'Connor, Roseanne Barr, and the first female Central Park carriage driver, together at last. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per choster above. This sounds like a good idea for a category at first, but the more you think about it, the worse it is - while there are some women who this would indisputably apply to (e.g. Amelia Earheart, Margaret Thatcher), the number of women who merely happen to be the first woman in a certain position is much larger, and there's no objective way of drawing the line between the two. This category, if populated further, would fairly quickly fill up with trivial examples. This sort of thing works much better as a list, which can be referenced and put in chronological order - see for example List of African-American firsts, rather than Category:African-Americans who were the first to break the color barrier in some field. Robofish (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per choster. A category populated on the basis of the characteristic of being a "female first" (I'll not focus on the phrase "gender barrier breaker" per postdlf's reasoning above) will inevitably collect articles on individuals in vastly different contexts (place and time) and circumstances and with vastly different achievements. The first female Italian surgeon, the first female Yeoman Warder, the first female monarch, and the first female Pakistani bus driver in Karachi all share the characteristic of being the first female X, but when X can be almost anything (most professions and public positions are or were historically male-dominated) and is not bound either by place or time, then that commonality loses much of its significance. Perhaps a list, which can provide context-specific organization, could overcome these problems and provide information of this nature; a category, however, is not suited to the task. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tribes of ancient British Isles

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tribes of ancient British Isles to Category:Ancient tribes of the British Isles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The tribes are ancient, not the British Isles. (Well, the British Isles are ancient, but the point of the category name is that these are ancient tribes.) If the current wording is kept it at least needs to be Category:Tribes of the ancient British Isles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 06:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Does this really need to go through this process - Speedy rename?. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Iron Age tribes of the British Isles would not do, since those in England and Wales survived as Roman civitates. However the subcategory for Scotland needs attention - Upmerge?. At present it only has the Picts in it, not other tribes north of Hadrian's Wall (which will be a better border than the present English border. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and upmerge where necessary. The 3 subcategories are already subcategories of Category:Ancient people and Category:Celtic culture, so the category is unnecessary. I would oppose the renaming as the category specifically consists of tribes that were around at a particular time and place, as conveyed by the current title. It is consistent with the subcategories and with Category:Tribes of ancient Gaul. "Ancient tribes" suggests the tribes were around a long time rather than in a specific period. Cjc13 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom The relation to the English Isles must of course be retained since that is what the articles are about. The last suggested rename loses that fact. Hmains (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per logically correct argument of nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even the nominator points out the contradiction in his argument. The British Isles really are ancient. On that basis, either name for the category is logically correct. Since the category is specifically a collection of tribes, it would seem best to use the "Tribes of" format. There is a case for using a capital A for ancient, since it is referring to a specific prehistoric period in time rather than merely describing a long period of time, There is also an alternative of Category:Tribes of Ancient Britain and Ireland, if anyone prefers that. Cjc13 (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's stretching my comment too far. We wouldn't want to use "of ancient British Isles" for that reason, because theoretically you could add it to every category about any ancient landmass. "Rivers of ancient North America" would be just as legitimate. I don't think this is the way we want to go. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I question the need for this category. Cjc13 (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Both are fine according to rules of grammar and (to the extent it applies to language in any case) logic and it's clear what is meant. But to my mind "Ancient tribes of the British Isles" conjures up a picture of tribes that are ancient but which still exist in the present British Isles, even if it's fairly obvious that that's unlikely to be what is in the cat. Declan Clam (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wineries of Syria

The result of the discussion was: Delete (category has remained empty and was empty at close). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A completely useless category created merely to push a WP:POV oriented WP:POINT on the Golan Heights Winery‎ page. As a member of WP:WINE, I have absolutely no opinion or interest in the Israeli-Syrian dispute over the Golan Heights but to label the Golan Heights Winery "Syrian" is completely false. This is an Israeli owned winery and is ALWAYS categorized as an "Israeli winery" in every wine book, guide, shop, catalog or discussion. This category was only created for this one article where it clearly does not apply to. Doing outside research shows very little evidence for the existence of any "Syrian winery" much less one that would pass WP:CORP and have an article on Wikipedia. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - International community recognize Golan Height as part of Syria that be occupied by israeli military. If US citizens open winery in part of Iraq that the US military occupy, it not be listed as "Winery in USA". The same apply here. I have no problem with being list as Israeli Wines because it own by Israelis and marketed by Israelis, but it factually incorrect to say it in Israel when it in Syria. Ani medjool (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Ani medjool (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about the Golan Heights, we're talking about WINERIES. No one recognizes the Golan Heights Winery as a "Syrian winery". The bigger question is, does a Syrian winery even exist? I see no evidence of any Syrian winery that would ever pass WP:CORP and merit an article which means this category has no reason for existing. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winery on Mars would not be called Winery of Earth. It be called Winery of Mars. Same here. It is Syria so it be list as Syria. A tree still be tree even if you put sign on it that say bush. When you say no one recognize it as being locate in Syria, then how that true? It locate in Golan which be Syria. Ani medjool (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, the sheer silliness of your "Martian winery" example leaves me at a loss for how to retort but I'll try. Since wine on Mars is so absurd, I will use a more realistic example of a military base. If the US military opens up a military base on Mars, any Wikipedia article on that base would include the category Category:Military bases of the United States not Category:Military bases of Mars. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is winery owned by Israel? no it owned by israelis. So that argument be not relevent to situation like this. It winery located in Syria so it be syrian winery. I stop editing this article until more user have input. Thank you Ani medjool (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it do you. The political WP:POV and WP:POINT aside, Golan Heights Winery is not a Syrian winery. It is never, ever classified as anything but an Israeli winery in every reliable source as well as every real life usage and application in the wine world. In the bigger picture related to this AfD discussion, there are no Syrian wineries that would pass WP:CORP and be merit inclusion in this category. It is hard to even find the existence of a Syrian winery. Therefore this will be a perpetually empty category. Again, I really don't care about the politics or which side is right in the Golan Heights dispute, but from a purely wine-related perspective this category is useless. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hate to throw water on the discussion, but the article was removed from the category since the article text clearly did not support inclusion in this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe a stalemate could be reached by leaving the "Wineries of Israel" category and creating a "Wineries in Syria" category. That way both points of view could be fairly represented, pending proper WP:RS. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 02:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Apparently there is an ANI issue opened against this category's creator Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ani_medjool. It looks like this category was created as part of broader WP:POV war. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 04:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category Wineries in the Golan Heights which can then be branched off other categories. The treatment of locations in the Golan Heights as unproblematically Israeli when international institutions such as the Security Council have repeatedly pronounced that the Golan is Syrian is a clear NPOV violation in itself.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Support creation of Category Wineries in the Golan Heights, assuming this doesn't set off a new round of edit warring over branched off categories. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 14:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From a wine content perspective, I can support that because it is factual and neutral. Though I seconded Nsaum's weariness that this will probably still be a magnet for more POV conflict with branching. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 15:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Christians are a significnat minority in Syria. They will use communion wine, and I expect they drink it at home. I therefore suspect that wine is made in Syria, but perhaps not in organised wineries. In regard to the article generating the controversy, can it not have both an Israeli and a Syrian category, to reflect both the de facto and the de jure situation? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. As there are currently no articles in the category, the deletion should be noncontroversial, the debate above nonwithstanding. Tomas e (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are not enough wineries (if any) in Syria to merit a category.--BodegasAmbite (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp:point argument, because the Golan is Israel. At most this could be Category:Wineries in territories governed by Israel and claimed by Syria. Soon we'll have Category:Wineries of Palestine including Carmel Winery. Ridiculous! And because the category is too small. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there appear to be no wineries that fit the category. Alansohn (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an empty category, which appears to have been created to advance a WP:POINT argument regarding the Golan Heights occupation. I do dispute the argument the "Golan is Israel" per international law. I would maybe support a "Wineries in Israeli occupied terrorities category" if needed, but I suspect it isn't. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article Golan Heights Winery for which an editor created the category which is under discussion here, just had Category talk:Wineries of Israeli occupied territories created for it by Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs). Tomas e (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It important to read this: User_talk:Ashley_kennedy3#Syrian_wine_for_those_who_think_it.27s_all_about_Israel.Ani medjool (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]