May 22
Category:Ethnic Armenian architects
- 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Unclear scope and use. ELEKHHT 23:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This has very clear scope. It is ethnic Americanian who are architects. This is the only way to categorize ethnic Armenian people invovled in architecture in the Ottoman Empire, or who have lived in Israel, Lebanon, Syria, or just about any other state within the former bounds of the Ottoman Empire. These people clearly have being Armenian as their number one identity, but they are also not nationals of Armenia, and do not fit in the Armenian category. Their Armenianess is similar to the Jewishness of Jews, a deep ethno-religious identity that clearly defines them, and so we should classify them as such. Beyond this, this is part of a whole series of ethnic Armenian categories and there is absolutely no reason to go after this particular one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We have Category:Jewish architects as subcat of Architects by nationality, but this category is subcat of Architects. There is also Category:Armenian architects in which I presume many are ethnic Armenian... --ELEKHHT 23:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Armenian architects have to be nationals of the nation state of Armenia. An ethnic Armenian architect from Lebanon does not qualify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A person like Nishan Yaubyan is clearly not a national of Armenia, and to use "Armenian" alone for a person living today just muddles the waters. He is also clearly an ethnic Amerinian who is defined in many ways by such. Jewishness is not a nationality, and should not be classed as such, and we should not be misusing nationality categories as ethnic ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For example the fairly similar Category:Jewish engineers is part of Category:Engineers by ethnicity. If we can classify engineers by ethnicity I see no reason why we should not do the same for architects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, classifying engineers by ethnicity is ridiculous. These cats should be deleted.My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ethnic Armenian architects design buildings in no coherent way differently than any other ethnic group. If we Ethnic Armenian architects, we'll also have Ethnic Armenian criminals, etc. Useless ethnicity cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the reasoning of Carlossuarez46. What does ethnicity have to do with defining how someone designs buildings and related things? Vegaswikian1 (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment It's not about whether ethnicity impacts how they design buildings - it's about the broader societal issues around their participation. Do you think Category:African-American journalists or Category:African-American poets write fundamentally different poetry? However, the question here is, is this defining as an intersection - not whether they design more armenian-like buildings. For that, no evidence has yet been provided.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One thing that should be considered is that people want to call these people "Armenian" and did so categorize them, but since we use Armenian to mean people who are connected with the nation of Armenia, we cannot also use it for ethnic Armenains in the Ottoman Empire, Turkey, Lebanon etc. I think people are missing how deeply these people identify as Armenian, especially in a country like Lebanon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning toward keep because that relates to ethnic culture. For example, having category "Armenian writers" as people who write on Armenian language and follow traditions of Armenian culture would be appropriate. Could we have a cat like "Armenian architecture"? If we could, we should also keep this category. My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- This is a difficult one, because there is a large diaspora, who have nothing to do with the present state of Armenia. Category:Armenian architects might be a solution, but we would need Category:Architects of Armenia for those in the present state. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently we use Armenian x for people in the current state, and ethnic Armenian x for those not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2013 (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:Quartermaster Hall of Fame inductees
- 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 at Quartermaster Hall of Fame. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: ARTICLE-IFY and Delete. The page creator(s) posted a lot of article-level content, references, and so forth, on the category page, so this appears to me to be an effort to create an article. I'm creating the article as we speak (see Quartermaster Hall of Fame), since the content needs to be there in any case. Once created, the list in the article will be the best place for this content, since it will be able to be displayed in a tabular format, sorted chronologically, alphabetically, or whatever, and include notes and any other useful information. Lquilter (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2013 (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:Upcoming products
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize based on current status. If WikiProjects need these to track articles and update them, then adding them to banners is far more effective. (e.g. using
class=future in ((Album)) rather than Category:Upcoming albums. Note also in this case that they're redundant.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that some of these subcategories have relevant categories for merging (e.g. Category:Upcoming albums is a subcategory of Category:Unreleased albums) and in those cases, they can be upmerged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about just making them hidden categories? Category:Upcoming albums is what I've referred to when marking albums as "future" on the WikiProject Albums banner. Most editors are better at including things in articles than in article talk pages. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - Which idiot decides to nominate these categories as well?
These are important categories, there was no need to tag them in the subcategory too, they should NEVER be deleted and when exactly did television series, season and episodes fall under "products"?. If anything, that category (Category:Upcoming products) should be removed from those categories I listed above....--Stemoc (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Stemoc. Actually we do have cats regarding current status as Category:Living people attests to. MarnetteD | Talk 18:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep These categories are helpful. Koala15 (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All of these categories are very useful. Who would nominate them for deletion? (Tigerghost (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep Extremely useful for those of us who edit articles in these categories.--Giants27(T|C) 15:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In the film category, I can attest that we have do have articles on films that are upcoming, and when it would be WP:CRYSTAL to specify a year of release. And these are not the only categories by current status, we also have a range of buildings and structures under construction, which are similarly temporary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The film categories are populated via the film date template in the infobox, and as Shawn has pointed out, there would be CRYSTAL violations of simply dumping some upcoming projects into future specific years. Tagging the talkpage with banners is ineffective, and at worst, these categories should be tagged as hidden, if certain projects feel that strongly about them. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:25, 27 May 2013 (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:Anti-Jewish politicians
- 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 and salt. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Recently created. Potential for BLP issues, regardless of intent of category. Also, we don't want this to blossom - otherwise we will have Politicians opposed to gay marriage, politicians in favor of gay marriage, politicians who don't like African-Americans, and so on. I don't think anyone disputes that Adolf Hitler didn't like jews, but we don't need a category to tell us so. Added the writers category to this nomination too. Note: through this nomination I am not suggesting that anti-semitism does not exist, nor that there are writers or politicians of this variety. What I am opposed to is using categories as same, which are black and white. The articles on these people can discuss their views, what critics say, what scholars say, with much more nuance. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete These categories would be subject to a lot of . . ...subjectivity, and I agree with Obi that the batch of catagories that would follow this trend would be endless. Carptrash (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the BLP that's an issue? Then how about changing it to Dead anti-Jewish politicians ? The issue here is that, quite correctly Category:Antisemitism doesn't (or shouldn't) cover individuals. You may not need a category for Hitler - but what about Karl Lueger, and others? I've never proposed these categories before btw or anything like them, and I don't have an encyclopedic memory of ancient deletions as you have, so the 'annual fest' crack is unnecessary. What led me to create them was that I removed the incorrect Category:Antisemitism from Richard Wagner, which is today's FA of the Day- and then realised there was nothing in the categories to denote him as (what the article clearly states and sources) a writer against Jews. It's up to other editors whether these categories go or stay; but there is no reason for you, in your nomination, to ignore WP:AGF. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough I removed the wisecrack. To answer your broader question, what Wagner wrote about, and who he liked/disliked, is best covered in the article, not through categories. cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--Smerus (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Where do advocates of the category draw the line between "anti-Jewish" and "anti-Semitic"? Right now this looks like an attempt to get around the previous consensus of not having categories for anti-Semitic people and not including people in the anti-Semitism category (and, FYI, "anti-Jewish" is frequently a POV term used by anti-Semites to try to soften their bigotry, which we should avoid borrowing). Smerus: I do agree that it's a problem that people who are really notable for being anti-Semitic (anti-Catholic, homophobic, etc.) can't be, by that consensus, included in categories that would help readers find them. It might be difficult to maintain, however. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for these comments. I actually believe that the term "antisemitic" is the camouflage word, and "anti-Jewish" is far more explicit - which is why I personally prefer it. But this isn't the place for that discussion.--Smerus (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is way to subjective. Some writers insist John Quincey Adams was anti-Jewish because he sought to convert Jews to Christianity, but this would not be his view. He always felt that his goals for the Jews was their own beterment. Anyway, B. H. Roberts is a politician who tried much harder to convert Jews to Christianity than Adams ever did (although, I guess in both cases they were not doing so within a political arena), but it would take a very skewed reading of his views to see them as anti-Jewish. This will just open the flood gates for over-classification. We should nip these bad idea categories in the bud. We should categorize politicians by the proactive fact that they belonged to actual political groups, not about what their views were. I mean, are we prepared to put this designation on U. S. Grant for his general order restricting the activities of Jews, which was aimed more at merchants than anything else, and if so how can we justify not putting FDR in an anti-Japanese category for internement in camps of Japanese people, which was much more egregious than an attempt to ban merchants from certain areas. This is just a bad idea. We have consistently deleted such categories, and we want to keep deleting such categories. Now Anti-Jewish activists might be a workable category, but a category where we can just tag people as anti-Jewish because of some amorphous claim will not work. The KKK was anti-Jewish, so can we put Hugo Black in. Also, why this and not Category:Anti-Catholic politicnas and Category:Anti-Muslims politicians, and we do not want to go there. Also, if we have this category, why not Category:Pro-Jewish politicians which can then be used to tag American politicians who are attacked as pawns of Israel. This will create a total mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that this and other attack terms are used so often against people who inst that they do not hold these views, and often used to marginalize political enemies even when they speak in considered and moderate ways about issues that effect them tells me these are bad ways to categorize people. I am not exagerating when I say that we could find those who would class people in Jews for Jesus as anti-Jewish, and then there is also the claim that certain people were "self-hating Jews". This type of category just plain does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete we should not categorize politicians on the basis of their positions on particular issues. As for all the fuzzy close calls; we certainly have real people who would noncontroversially fall into this category, but again we should not (and generally don't) categorize politicians on one professed viewpoint, even if it pervades their whole agenda. Category:Capitalist politicians anyone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteHow do you measure if someone is "anti-Jewish" or not, unless they outright come and say it? Many people have been accused of anti-Semitism by many groups with extreme views, as has happened already happened not just to public figures such as Ahmadinejad andGalloway, but to generally non-controversial celebrities as well, such as Stephen Hawking, Günter Grass, and even Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Where do you draw the line? How do you measure who is anti-Jewish, if they all vehemently deny it (not to mention the WP:living factor). This category would lead to nothing but potential problems, and I don't see why it must be included if someone can read the article and judge from it's context their own conclusions. I feel like these kind of categorizations are always done for political purposes (just see how many people like Desmond Tutu, Uri Avnery, etc. who have worked their whole lives for peace have been slandered) and while there may be many legitimate cases of anti-semitic notables on wikipedia (i.e, Hitler), I feel like this category would be more abused than used.
- Last but not least, I refer to this CDF from a while back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories
- Solntsa90 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment To all reading this, I also invite you to join a related discussion here, to discuss whether biographies of people labelled as antisemitic by sources can be added to Category:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States. I will link to this at the top as well. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm in agreement with many above. I do not know exactly by what means we define someone as anti-Semitic unless they openly proclaim it themselves. Many sources may speculate on whether a subject does or does not hold prejudice but that hardly makes it matter-of-fact. Then there is the slippery-slope precedent that this sets where we begin categorizing politicians by individual issues.LM2000 (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, suppose they do openly proclaim it themselves, such as Karl Lueger? I challenge anyone to claim that categorisng Lueger as anti-Jewsih would be 'subjective'. Just to remind people, the heading on the categories is quite specific:'Politicians/Writers who, on the basis of appropriate citations and sources in their Wikipedia articles ', can be demonstrated as expressing sentiments against Judaism or against Jews generically. There is no slippery slope here as far as I can see. I understand the BLP caveat; but would there therefore be a problem with, say, Category:Anti-Jewish politicians of the 19th century or Category: Anti-Jewish writers of the 19th century? I await a serious answer to this question which does not shout out 'NPOV', 'salting' and the other war-cries of dedicated deleters. --Smerus (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerus, if you are trying to lay flamebait, then your closing line is a good effort. OTOH, if you want a serious discussion, then comments such as "war-cries of dedicated deleters" are uncivil and assume bad faith.
On the substantive point, "expressing sentiments against Judaism or against Jews generically" is a horrendously broad spectrum. It includes everyone from Nazi propagandists to an academic who critiques the patriarchal nature of Judaism.
This problem applies to all "anti-X" categories: either threy include anyone who has ever said anything critical of X, or they have some sort of WP:OC#ARBITRARY inclusion criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK you don't like my prose style but in your answer you still do not give a reason against Category:Anti-Jewish politicians of the 19th century. Jew-hatred is not like most other "anti-X" categories; it was a core element of a good deal of political activity, and indeed philosophical activity, in the nineteenth century. I am not talking here about 'Nazi propagandists', Desmond Tutu, Jews for Jesus, etc. I am talking about people such as (for example) Fichte, Fries, Lueger, etc., all of whom have been identified in numerous scholarly works as exemplars of anti-Jewish attitudes which were inherent in German-speaking Europe during the 19th century (and all of whom would have gladly acknowledged that they were anti-Jewish). Every academic study is free to point out the links between these people - but not, apparently, Wikipedia. If the reason is that some idiots may put into the category inappropriate people - well that happens all the time in other categories. Responsible editors take them out - exactly as I myself removed Wagner from Category:Antisemitism. So I still await a reason.--Smerus (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Next up would be Category:Anti-Jewish politicians of the 20th century, and it would be quite hard to delete that one if 19th-c was kept. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. These categories are magnets, and can't be easily patrolled, so bias-labels are generally eschewed, and anti-semitism is not a binary (either yes or no). (offtopic: a funny song [1]). Now, if you wanted to create an article called Antisemitism in 19th century Germany, I don't think there would be any opposition, and you could discuss this in detail, and nuance. The category system is just too blunt a tool. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All noted. And thanks for the song reference - tho' the classic here is surely Tom Lehrer's 'National Brotherhood Week'......in fact the lines 'To hate all but the right folks/ Is an old established rule' could be a motto for Wikipedia :-} --Smerus (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Smerus, it's not your prose style that I object to. It's your incivility and assunmptions of bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So sweet!--Smerus (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt both per nominator, as an end-run around the previous deletions of categories for anti-semitic people.
There is of course such a thing as anti-semitism (or anti-Jewishness), and it's a hugely important topic ... but it's not a binary issue. It's easy and uncontroversial to label Nazis in this way, but on the other extreme there are people who may once be reported to have made one comment which somebody somewhere construes as "anti-Jewish". In between, there are plenty of people whom any such label would may be hotly contested on both sides.
Categories are a binary switch; either a page is in the category, or it isn't. There is no qualification or nuance. Per WP:YESPOV, we should "avoid stating opinions as facts" ... and categorising people in this way presents an opinion as a fact. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then how fares Category:Anti-Jewish activists like we have Category:Pro-choice activists and all sorts of others that may be nuanced as well (pro-choice: always? for minors? at near or full term, or even past viability?). Virtually all labels of viewpoints, whether activists or politicians etc. are similarly flawed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Carlos, I've been thinking about this a lot recently - it's a good question. And I think you're right - we do have subjective categories, like Category:Pro-choice activists or Category:Anti-communists - how do we decide if someone is in these categories? Even something like Category:Poets is a tricky one - if a writer has produced tons of material, and writes a few poems, does that make them a poet? What if one source calls them a poet, and then 20 others just call them a writer? These are subtle things, that are often worked out article by article. I think there is a fundamental difference with the bias categories, though. Presence in these categories is, by their nature, defaming. Many (though not all) of the people who could potentially be added to this list will claim to their dying day that they are not anti-jewish or anti-semitic or whatever. Anti-communist is against an ideology. You can be anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-globalization, and so on, these are labels that most people in these categories embrace themselves. However, anti-jewish, homophobic, racist, sexist, these are terms for prejudice - not against an ideology or a policy, but against a whole class of people, regardless of who those people are - and as such, they are commonly seen as slurs, rather than matter of fact statements of position. Thus, while I agree we have other categories that in some cases may have subjective inclusion criteria (does one RS make one a poet?), there is little harm done by over-categorizing someone as a poet. OTOH, if a single newspaper publishes a single claim that X is anti-semitic, and X is now added to an anti-jewish writers category as a result (never to be removed, right? once a duck, probably always a duck), this is a slur. So to avoid such slurs, we only allow categories that defame IF there is a strongly objective inclusion criteria - like a prosecution for a crime. But there is no prosecution for anti-semitism, there is no final deciding authority, that makes a list of anti-semites and racists, and sexists and so on. So I think the difference is, are you anti-(category of people) or anti-(particular religion), or are you anti-(something else) - which is perhaps why there is a special consensus on not having these categories. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is less black and white than that, I think. Is being anti-Jewish, anti-XXX defaming? I think that there are many who embrace their anti-ness (anti-Zionism, anti-Colonialism, anti-Nuclear) and similarly many "pro" type categories can be seen as anti- categories in reverse: Pro-Family (really, anti-same-sex marriage and other feminist and gay rights), Pro Life (really, anti-abortion and (sometimes) related things like stem cell research, birth control, and in some cases anti-capital punishment and euthanasia). Nationalism and patriotism are also euphemisms for anti-immigration and anti-racial/religious bias. Again, the whole categorization of people on a viewpoint (subjective) or "activism" (which is viewpoint that has once demonstrated?) is problematic as applied to people. Your examples of once a duck always a duck are hard to apply for people who have gone from one ideology to another; similarly, even members of a party - can they be categorized by the platform they run under? If the platform is Pro Life, are they even when they profess to be Pro Choice? Is a Catholic who uses birth control still a Catholic? Nearly any subjective categorization of people is bound to run into these difficulties. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Being anti-jewish, I think, is defaming. We do have Category:Critics of Judaism, which is different. Like I said, I think it is not considered a slur to be anti-(ideology), and it is not a slur to be considered Critic of (religion), but to be Anti-(class of people, gender, ethnicity) is a slur. Yes, it's not black and white, but that seems to be where the line has been drawn to date.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. (It should be uniform with the current consensus against adding people to bias categories.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For what it is worth, I think we should seriously consider de-populating the anti-communist categories of people. However, I am not sure that there is any other way to view the John Birch Society except as anti-communist. The problem with these categories is there is too much nuance. There are people like Haj Amin al-Husseini, but I think we are categorizing him much more accurately as a Nazi colaborator than we would ever be calling him "anti-Jewish".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's offtopic here, but I don't think it's the same thing at play - see the discussion with Carlos above. But specifics about the other anti-cats should be brought to those talk pages or here as separate noms.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Using these categories appear to be an attempt to circumvent consensus in this CFD discussion. I believe some people can indeed be assigned to this category, but deciding who should be there is difficult and potentially damaging, especially with regard to BLPs. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. We've been through this, editors will keep coming back and creating these categories, and we'll have to keep deleting them. We need a log of editors who do so. (See relevant discussion. Of course they'll probably just use sockpuppets next time, but nevertheless... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:23, 26 May 2013 (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:People connected with Nortel
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Being "connected with" something is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. If any of these articles are about people whose notability is because of Nortel they could be moved up to Category:Nortel people. DexDor (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This category contains people who have worked for and alongside The Walt Disney Company in the past and present.
- Is this acceptable? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure but since that is not the category being discussed I do not think it is relevant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2013 (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:People associated with Liverpool
- 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: Merg to . Timrollpickering (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Being (in some way) associated with a place is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. This is the only category about a city under Category:People associated with places. Note: There is also Category:People from Liverpool. DexDor (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if you aren't from Liverpool, this isn't the runner-up category to strive for. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ay now, ay now, calm down! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How can I associate? Do I get a nifty keychain and a t-shirt? And a Merseyside accent, t'boot? ;-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2013 (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:Guobiao standards
- 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- This nis ambiguous. GB stands for Great Britain. It is the article that is wrongly named. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I don't recall the circumstance where I created this, but it was correctly named then and still is. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2013 (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.