< October 2 October 4 >

October 3

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 119.95.55.46

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) 22:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category established in violation of WP:HSOCK. No evidence of blocks, SPI, or socking presented. GregJackP Boomer! 17:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 16:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as an empty category. —  dainomite   09:24, 10 October 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:Jewish serial killers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy deletion under G4, as a recreation of a category that was recently deleted after a CfD discussion.. Dana boomer (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATEGRS, "do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic".
I see no evidence of any such relevance here. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 3 October 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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 118.172.99.234

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) 22:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created in violation of WP:HSOCK, no blocks, no SPI, no evidence of socking. GregJackP Boomer! 16:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 14:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom in addition to being an empty category. —  dainomite   09:24, 10 October 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:Democratic socialist parties

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. – Fayenatic London 11:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 'Democratic socialist', 'Socialist' and 'social democrat' are terms used interchangeably. Their is a difference in connotation between DS and SD, but it is more indicative of national political contexts than a difference between parties. The current category contains some parties that would fit well into Category:Social democratic parties (like Socialist Forces Front, Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas, Progressive Socialist Party), and some parties (like The Left (Germany), Socialist Party (Netherlands)) that would fit better in Category:Socialist parties, and some parties that fit in neither (Republican Left of Catalonia). The current category set-up is highly arbritrary, and seems to be based largely on OR interpretations of names. Soman (talk) 12:28, 3 October 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:Cat artists

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: Withdrawn by nominator Sven Manguard Wha? 18:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an ill defined category that contains two people that draw cats and one cat that's used as a fashion model. Not clear what the intended purpose is, but it appears to be failing said purpose. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sven Manguard: Should this category be merged into Category:Animal artists, then? It appears to be an excessively precise category. Jarble (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is total nonsense! Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 9 October 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:New Zealand people of Yugoslav descent

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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one subcategory (containing one article entry) and one article entry. (Prior to this week, it contained only the single subcategory.) Is this category overly specific and unlikely to ever contain enough article entries to justify its existence? Dwpaul (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now it has two article entries. The second entry is for the mother of the subject of the first article entry. Both are notable in her own right but neither is notable for a reason having directly to do with their Slavic ancestry (or their residency in New Zealand). Dwpaul (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Any thoughts on the CfD? You're the only editor to have used the category recently -- before that it had one article entry. Dwpaul (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Yes, I was getting to that. I see it's a significant ethnic group.[1][2] These sources suggest a possible merge to Category:New Zealand people of Croatian descent ("though they are really Croats, a name they prefer, they are often called Dalmatians") or else a rename to Category:New Zealand people of Dalmation descent, as a subcategory of Category:Dalmatian people. StAnselm (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding this really interesting: "Many early immigrants to New Zealand hated the Austro-Hungarian empire, and when Dalmatia became part of Yugoslavia they proudly called themselves Yugoslavs. But those who arrived after the Second World War had lived in Yugoslavia and did not share this enthusiasm. As the war atrocities in Yugoslavia mounted during the 1990s, factions developed in the Auckland community. For some, the sight of the Yugoslav flag became offensive. Others disliked the word ‘Croatian’ because Croatian fascists had supported Hitler in the Second World War. But if they were not Yugoslavs or Croatians, what were they? The Auckland Yugoslav Society met to debate the issue. The term ‘Dalmatian’ was eventually reinstated, being the most neutral."[3] StAnselm (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All that to say that most people in Category:New Zealand people of Croatian descent would be of the same ethnic group, and so my vote is merge there. StAnselm (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support change to merge per your research. Dwpaul (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a) at least one of the people in the category you mention did not emigrate (was born in NZ) and if she had would not have done from Yugoslavia, since it hasn't existed during her lifetime and (b) there seems to be significant controversy about referring to someone as being of Yugoslav descent, since the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was partitioned into multiple states some years ago (and there are negative connotations to the term for some). Dwpaul (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure on what you are referring to. Mazhar Krasniqi was born in Yugoslavia and emigrated to New Zealand as a Yugoslav national. Thus he was a "Yugoslav emigrant to New Zealand". Since Category:Yugoslav emigrants to New Zealand legitimately exists, then so too should the parent, which is the nominated category. I see no issue here, and since it is part of a consistent overall scheme, WP:SMALLCAT doesn't come into play. [User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The person I was referring to was born in 1996 (long after Yugoslavia was dissolved) but is no longer linked to the category in question. I was not referring to Krasniqi. Dwpaul (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered that, but if there are articles that can still be legitimately categorized in Category:Yugoslav emigrants to New Zealand and/or the parent Category:New Zealand people of Yugoslav descent, the fact that one or two articles that have been in the category don't belong in the category is not a reason to delete the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:43, 5 October 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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 118.170.16.14

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) 22:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Established in violation of WP:HSOCK, no evidence presented, no prior blocks, no SPI GregJackP Boomer! 03:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 13:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom in addition to being an empty category. —  dainomite   09:28, 10 October 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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 113.22.129.101

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) 22:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Established in violation of WP:HSOCK, no block or SPI history GregJackP Boomer! 03:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 12:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom in addition to being an empty category. —  dainomite   09:28, 10 October 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:Salford City Reds

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: main page has been renamed. Mattlore (talk) 02:57, 3 October 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.
More