The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Jamaican-American singer-songwriters
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCAT by ethnicity. There are few pages in this category, and there's already a
Jamaican American musicians category. One user created the Jamaican-American singer-songwriters category once, I nominated it to be merged into Jamaican American musicians and it was eventually merged, but the user recreated the category.
Funk Junkie (
talk)
19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Private Equity & Hedge Funds with financial ties to politicians
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Delete - vague and otherwise problematic category. What are "financial ties to politicians"? Politician investments in those funds? If so, that's largely trivial. Politician sitting on boards etc.? Might be trivial, might be highly defining; it will be incredibly fact-specific. Politicians taking campaign contributions? Bribes? what? This appears to be using the category system to make a point, and the point would be better made by writing a properly sourced and referenced article that is not
WP:OR. Categories working as subterfuge articles is never a good idea. --
Lquilter (
talk)
21:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Entities or Persons committing SEC Violations
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale: I personally think this topic could be better handled via a list that can provide sourced commentary and details, or in individual articles on the respective entities and persons, and so support deletion of the category. However, if it is kept, it ought to be renamed to Category:Companies convicted of SEC violations (or similar) and rescoped. – Black Falcon(
Talk)19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete and articleify/listify - For one thing, this could be incredibly broad and is not time-limited, so it could pick up things which are not defining and even trivial in the life of a company or person. Much better to include as examples or small lists in appropriate articles:
Securities and Exchange Commission prosecution, maybe; lists relating to notable SEC violations might include largest penalties levied; largest amounts involved; etc. --
Lquilter (
talk)
21:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as OCAT, neutral on listification and if listified, please use something other than the present participle which turns this into a "current" category and probably only includes entities or persons we don't know are doing the naughty deeds.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Ramayana
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I'll admit I know basically nothing about Hindu mythology so I may be way off here. But the two categories strike me as being about the same Sanskrit text and reading the (two) articles in the first category, I fail to see the distinction between the two categories. Hopefully, more knowledgeable people can clear this up.
Pichpich (
talk)
20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)reply
*Strong keep - This proposal shows a lack of understanding of
Ramayana. For example, which category should
Ranayan be classed in? Neither, I would suggest. Okay, I am convinced by the arguments below.
Sarah777 (
talk)
16:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)reply
By the way: if that's not clear, let me note that I have no problem with the suggestion to merge to Ramayana rather than to Ramanaya epic. But Sarah, please tell us the difference between these two categories since you seem to know more about the topic than I do.
Pichpich (
talk)
03:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank7117:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Leo J. Ryan award recipients
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining overcategorization by award (also, unnecessary eponymous category for an award). This award for cult awareness activities, administered by the Cult Awareness Network, is not defining (and possibly not still in existence). The winners are all listed in the award page itself and those with wikipedia pages are all linked.
Lquilter (
talk)
17:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually, I think this may be, as they are otherwise not too well known, unlike many award recipients. Most articles seem to mention the award prominently, except for
Richard Behar, which oddly lists 9 awards but not this.
Johnbod (
talk)
23:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
It's true that as they are teachers, who receive relatively little media attention compared with, say, physicists and novelists (not to mention actors and models), the award is more prominent in their biographies. Still, I'm not sure I'd go with "defining" -- would it make or break their careers? Would most people know them as Ryan award recipients? Sadly, I feel that science teacher awards -- even long-lived, prestigious ones -- are not generally defining. YMMV, of course. --
Lquilter (
talk)
05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
National Hockey League categories
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale: Expand "NHL" to "National Hockey League" for consistency with all other National Hockey League categories.
Resolute16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Entertainers with Bloods affiliations
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Speciesism
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Delete The concept may warrant research, but we tend to create articles before categories. Not the other way around. Currently there is no article on the the treatment of animals by Isla, or Christianity, etch.
Dimadick (
talk)
20:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. An inherently POV categorization. A similar category called "Speciesist articles" was deleted on
2007 SEP 25. Being "speciesist" is certainly not a defining characteristic of Islam or monotheism, etc.
Zoporific21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:WikiProject Saint Louis Rams
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Jamaican-American singer-songwriters
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCAT by ethnicity. There are few pages in this category, and there's already a
Jamaican American musicians category. One user created the Jamaican-American singer-songwriters category once, I nominated it to be merged into Jamaican American musicians and it was eventually merged, but the user recreated the category.
Funk Junkie (
talk)
19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Private Equity & Hedge Funds with financial ties to politicians
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Delete - vague and otherwise problematic category. What are "financial ties to politicians"? Politician investments in those funds? If so, that's largely trivial. Politician sitting on boards etc.? Might be trivial, might be highly defining; it will be incredibly fact-specific. Politicians taking campaign contributions? Bribes? what? This appears to be using the category system to make a point, and the point would be better made by writing a properly sourced and referenced article that is not
WP:OR. Categories working as subterfuge articles is never a good idea. --
Lquilter (
talk)
21:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Entities or Persons committing SEC Violations
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale: I personally think this topic could be better handled via a list that can provide sourced commentary and details, or in individual articles on the respective entities and persons, and so support deletion of the category. However, if it is kept, it ought to be renamed to Category:Companies convicted of SEC violations (or similar) and rescoped. – Black Falcon(
Talk)19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete and articleify/listify - For one thing, this could be incredibly broad and is not time-limited, so it could pick up things which are not defining and even trivial in the life of a company or person. Much better to include as examples or small lists in appropriate articles:
Securities and Exchange Commission prosecution, maybe; lists relating to notable SEC violations might include largest penalties levied; largest amounts involved; etc. --
Lquilter (
talk)
21:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as OCAT, neutral on listification and if listified, please use something other than the present participle which turns this into a "current" category and probably only includes entities or persons we don't know are doing the naughty deeds.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Ramayana
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I'll admit I know basically nothing about Hindu mythology so I may be way off here. But the two categories strike me as being about the same Sanskrit text and reading the (two) articles in the first category, I fail to see the distinction between the two categories. Hopefully, more knowledgeable people can clear this up.
Pichpich (
talk)
20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)reply
*Strong keep - This proposal shows a lack of understanding of
Ramayana. For example, which category should
Ranayan be classed in? Neither, I would suggest. Okay, I am convinced by the arguments below.
Sarah777 (
talk)
16:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)reply
By the way: if that's not clear, let me note that I have no problem with the suggestion to merge to Ramayana rather than to Ramanaya epic. But Sarah, please tell us the difference between these two categories since you seem to know more about the topic than I do.
Pichpich (
talk)
03:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank7117:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Leo J. Ryan award recipients
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining overcategorization by award (also, unnecessary eponymous category for an award). This award for cult awareness activities, administered by the Cult Awareness Network, is not defining (and possibly not still in existence). The winners are all listed in the award page itself and those with wikipedia pages are all linked.
Lquilter (
talk)
17:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually, I think this may be, as they are otherwise not too well known, unlike many award recipients. Most articles seem to mention the award prominently, except for
Richard Behar, which oddly lists 9 awards but not this.
Johnbod (
talk)
23:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
It's true that as they are teachers, who receive relatively little media attention compared with, say, physicists and novelists (not to mention actors and models), the award is more prominent in their biographies. Still, I'm not sure I'd go with "defining" -- would it make or break their careers? Would most people know them as Ryan award recipients? Sadly, I feel that science teacher awards -- even long-lived, prestigious ones -- are not generally defining. YMMV, of course. --
Lquilter (
talk)
05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
National Hockey League categories
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Nominator's rationale: Expand "NHL" to "National Hockey League" for consistency with all other National Hockey League categories.
Resolute16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Entertainers with Bloods affiliations
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Speciesism
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Delete The concept may warrant research, but we tend to create articles before categories. Not the other way around. Currently there is no article on the the treatment of animals by Isla, or Christianity, etch.
Dimadick (
talk)
20:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. An inherently POV categorization. A similar category called "Speciesist articles" was deleted on
2007 SEP 25. Being "speciesist" is certainly not a defining characteristic of Islam or monotheism, etc.
Zoporific21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:WikiProject Saint Louis Rams
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.