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.
Speedy delete. Just created, empty, and nominated by the author. Didn't need to be taken to CfD. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:59, 30 August 2016 (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:Deni Hines
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per numerous precedent and
WP:OCEPON, there is not enough independent content for this individual to warrant an eponymous category at this time. Note that there are other article which could be placed under a yet to be created
Category:Deni Hines songs but this category still wouldn't be needed. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - it's OVERCAT at this point; one article and one template do not warrant a category.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:31, 1 September 2016 (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:Sunni Muslim communities in Syria
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.
Support, this types of schemes would too easily lead to overcategorization, every big city may have dozens of these communities. Depopulated villages categories should be regarded as merely exceptional.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not categorize places by the majority ethno-religious group. This is too variable, and we then run into a situation where some areas can fall under multiple categories in ways that are truly confusing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:41, 14 September 2016 (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 American members of the United States Congress
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.
Nominator's rationale: Defamatory. We don't have a category for any other religious affiliation of members of Congress. Why is it so important to single out the Jews?
MSJapan (
talk) 21:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete presumably all members of the United States Congress are American, so it's just the Jewish part that needs defense: do Jewish congressmembers do things differently than their non-Jewish peers? If so, how and back that up with reliable sources; otherwise trivial intersection and could be handled in a list if the topic is notable; then everyone could be sourced reliably and the distinction between Jewish religion and Jewish ethnicity can be handled.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Jewish members of the United States Congress. A politician's religion will be a significant factor in the way he votes and in his political attitudes. However "American" is a redundant in the category name. If there were a Muslim congressman, I would be surprised if a category would not be created.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 20:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Carlos got it. Religion has nothing to do with how a politician votes without proof of such, and there isn't any. Secondly, to be perfectly honest, it's only the Christians (who aren't categorized as such) who do that, because they make a point to say "I voted this way because I am a Christian!" In short, the category is insinuating that a Jewish politician has to be categorized as such, but no one else does. African-American isn't a religion, and political party in a political area is relevant. Religion is not when it's only one religion being pointed out en masse.
MSJapan (
talk) 16:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Of course a person's religious belief is liable to affect the way a person votes. Po9liticiasn are not automaton controlled by the party leader.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Afaics Jewish people from one party do not consistently vote differently than Christian people of that party.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename if Kept Congresspeople are required to be American so the article name can be shortened. While this category is hardly defamatory, Wikipedia categories are all over the map for when religion/ethnicity is defining and when it's not.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete This category is built on the assumption that Jewishness is an ethno-religious designation. This was workable more or less in 1975. As of today we are in a situation where it has bifurcated too much. Does
Bernard Saunders belong in this category. He does not claim Jewishness is any meaningful way.
Jason Chaffetz is another example, where he was only even vaguely culturally Jewish but he is clearly a Latter-day Saint at present but that does not neccesarily negate his Jewishness. In an era when more than half the people who identify as Jewish in the US marry people who do not so identify, and when we are moving more and more toward the only people who are Jewish in a sustained way people Orthodox Religious Jews, yet virtually none of the Jews in congress are such, this category no longer has a clear "yes/no" answer of who does and who does not belong.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
If Bernie Sanders says "I'm proud to be Jewish", which he does, how can you say "He does not claim Jewishness is any meaningful way"?
Bus stop (
talk) 13:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: The nominator's rational could have been worded better. Of course categorizing someone as a [ insert Religion or Ethnicity here ] member of Congress is not defamatory by itself. But such categorization has long been used as a method of disparagement, whether real or only perceived. As an example, witness the attempts by political opponents to paint candidate Barack Obama alternately as "Muslim" or "black liberation Christian", even though being Muslim or Christian is not defamatory. Or witness the similar attempts to highlight candidate
John F. Kennedy's Catholicism, even though being a Roman Catholic isn't defamatory; or candidate
Mitt Romney's Mormonism, even though being Mormon isn't defamatory. Or to use a recent example mentioned above, political opponents of Bernie Sanders have tried to paint him as alternately Jewish, or
not Jewish enough, while editors of Wikipedia did likewise (See
this edit summary or
this comment). The bottom line Wikipolicy is this: Encyclopedic coverage of a person's religion and ethnicity, with high-quality reliable sourcing and proper context, is allowed in the body of the article. Wikipedia isn't censored. However, pigeon-holing a person into fixed categories (or Infobox fields) involving religion or ethnicity is only allowed when that person is notable because of that religion or ethnicity. Unless Congressman Smith is referred to in virtually all reliable sources as "Jewish Congressman Smith", and is known not as a Congressman, but instead as a Jewish Congressman, then he is not to be categorized as such. Applicable policy:
WP:BLPCAT: Categories and Infobox fields on religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.
WP:CATGRS: Avoid categorizing people by non-defining characteristics involving gender/ethnicity/sexuality/disability/religion.
WP:NONDEF: A defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose (as opposed to a tabular or list form), the subject as having. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a person should have their own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a person. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category or infobox field should be created for a particular attribute of a person. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the person. In cases where a particular attribute about a person is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, an alternative to the Infobox or Category is preferred.
WP:OCEGRS: People should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.
I suspect that if you go through this category (and its subcategories) and remove every entry that does not meet the above Wikipedia policy requirements to be so categorized, you will likely end up with an empty category -- making it a perfect candidate for deletion.
Xenophrenic (
talk) 19:27, 24 September 2016 (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:Polemicists
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category violates
WP:BLP by accusing people of being polemicists without any citations. There are no requirements for inclusion, so it can be used to attack anyone who's arguments you don't like.
Guy Macon (
talk) 11:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Note: I removed this cat from the pages it was on as a BLP violation. We can re-add if it is determined not to be a BLP violation. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 12:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete While a pedant might claim the category refers to the technical meaning of
polemic, onlookers know that, in common usage, being a polemicist is bad. Whatever meaning is intended by the category, it is rarely a defining feature of a person, and the label is merely the subjective opinion of a particular observer.
Johnuniq (
talk) 12:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Several of the articles - such as
Ayn Rand and
Christopher Hitchens - that Guy Macon removed the category from are about people who are deceased, which means that the category is obviously not a BLP violation in those cases, even though that was the reason he gave for removing it.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 00:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)reply
My mistake. I should have checked to see which ones have been dead for a while and said that I was removing them for being unsourced POV pushing by a drive-by username/possible sock who has a suspicious amount of knowledge about Wikipedia categories for a "new" editor. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 03:21, 30 August 2016 (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:Geography of Earth
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 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_sportspeople
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 to delete. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Kimock: IMO, Jewish sportspeople do constitute a moderately distinct topic, per
Maccabiah Games,
List of Jewish sportspeople, and the
International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame. On a normative level, it may however be discussed whether this categorization contributes to segregation and discrimination more than it does to raising awareness. While I concur with DexDor that all subcategories need to be co-nominated, the nominator might want to further elaborate on these two aspects. Regards,
PanchoS (
talk) 14:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete trivial intersection between religion/ethnicity and occupation; do Jewish sportspeople do their sport differently than their non-Jewish counterparts? If not, then it's trivial. If they do, pray tell how so and back it up with reliable sources.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
In the case of
Sandy Koufax, yes. :) He created a huge news furor when he refused to pitch on Yom Kippur, for the Yankees, in the World Series. There is an inconsistency problem, though, as the nom notes.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep, but - there's definitely a problem. Enough has been written about Jewish sportspeople where I think it is a legitimate subcat. All that being said, are Jews being categorized in occupations, and other religions are not? Are we doing so as an ethnic category or a religious category? This brings up an age-old argument, but I think we need to discuss this in a wider forum.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I do worry sometimes that some of our ethnic categories highlight people that break stereotypes, like
Category:African-American classical musicians, and I wonder if that's happening here. I'll defer to others whether readers would find this category helpful for navigation or not.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 11:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete This category may well have worked 70 years ago, but it is built on a fundamentally antiquated understanding of ethno-religious identies. It does not work with the fluid edges of current Jewish definition.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment If kept we should make this a container category, and force all articles to be in sub-categories where we can demonstrate that the particular overlap of sport and being Jewish in whatever ethnic/cultural/religious or racial way the subject was defined in the complex interaction between the subject and his or her surrounding society was at least generally defining within the sport and preferably particularly defining to the given individual. For example, someone who converted to being Jewish after retiring from playing baseball should not be in this category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment That is was recognized as a dinstict cultural topic 70 years ago does not mean it is today.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
-John seems to have a strong interest in deletion for some reason. But he hasnt read these 15 books. Many are very current. Where is John coming from? Why would he make up this argument?
2604:2000:E016:A700:4484:D7B0:8756:2C26 (
talk) 07:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment The impressive number of sources listed above show us the substantiality of the notion of "Jewish sportspeople".
Bus stop (
talk) 13:18, 24 September 2016 (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:Former National Football League cities
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.
Nominator's rationale: Trivial category. Would be better as a list on the NFL article.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 02:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - certainly a NONDEFINING item. Also, as a time-dependent item, it's problematic. Baltimore, Cleveland, and Houston all had teams leave, and then new teams came in to replace them several years later. So they're both former and current.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as non defining.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 00:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Are we really willing to apply this when a stadium moves from one part of a Metro Area to another?
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:59, 14 September 2016 (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:International League 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
International League is a minor league baseball league in the U.S. I think specific sports leagues Halls of Fame are rarely defining because we already have the same athletes in the league's team player categories and Halls of Fame by their nature recognize people who already have achieved "fame". This one is especially non-defining though because the players are often getting this award for how they performed once they were called up in the major leagues, not how they did in this league. (Contrast this with the
IL MVP Award which is for performance in this league.) The winners of this award are already grouped in
four templates. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- The hall of fame appears to exist as a travelling exhibition. However that does not prevent
WP:OC#AWARD applying.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 20:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - The League itself is AAA minor-league baseball. The players at that level are therefore the most likely to go on to a career in the majors (and thus become notable per ATHLETE); put another way, the award is inheriting from the player. The Hall itself as an organization is erratic; they basically were defunct for four decades, and their induction criteria are unknown, so the weight of the award isn't clear, either. There is only one person in the list of inductees who does not have an article, and that is because he was inducted as an executive. Therefore, the main article's list should be sufficient.
MSJapan (
talk) 16:40, 2 September 2016 (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:Internet Hall of Fame
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.
Leonard Kleinrock designed packet switching in 1964,
Bob Kahn co-invented TCI/IP in 1974, and @
Jimbo Wales: launched an online encyclopedia in 2000. Do we really think any of these 3 people are defined by
an award established in 2012 that recognizes their (much) earlier accomplishments? Like with most halls of fame, this award just reflects the pre-existing fame of the recipients. The winners are currently listed
here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, you'd think the PR cat would be promotional - that's sort of what they do. :) The real question is this - are the "pioneers" self-selected, or are they recognized by others after the fact? If the former, then it's promotional. The latter should be supportable with RS, etc. and should be fine.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete category -- This is typical case of
WP:OC#Award. It is legitimate to have a list article on the award, though it is a fairly recent one, but that does not mean we need a category. No objection to merging, but the articles ought to be in the target already.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 20:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - per Peterkingiron. There's no value in an upmerge as noted.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:27, 1 September 2016 (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.
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.
Speedy delete. Just created, empty, and nominated by the author. Didn't need to be taken to CfD. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:59, 30 August 2016 (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:Deni Hines
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per numerous precedent and
WP:OCEPON, there is not enough independent content for this individual to warrant an eponymous category at this time. Note that there are other article which could be placed under a yet to be created
Category:Deni Hines songs but this category still wouldn't be needed. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - it's OVERCAT at this point; one article and one template do not warrant a category.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:31, 1 September 2016 (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:Sunni Muslim communities in Syria
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.
Support, this types of schemes would too easily lead to overcategorization, every big city may have dozens of these communities. Depopulated villages categories should be regarded as merely exceptional.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not categorize places by the majority ethno-religious group. This is too variable, and we then run into a situation where some areas can fall under multiple categories in ways that are truly confusing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:41, 14 September 2016 (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 American members of the United States Congress
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.
Nominator's rationale: Defamatory. We don't have a category for any other religious affiliation of members of Congress. Why is it so important to single out the Jews?
MSJapan (
talk) 21:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete presumably all members of the United States Congress are American, so it's just the Jewish part that needs defense: do Jewish congressmembers do things differently than their non-Jewish peers? If so, how and back that up with reliable sources; otherwise trivial intersection and could be handled in a list if the topic is notable; then everyone could be sourced reliably and the distinction between Jewish religion and Jewish ethnicity can be handled.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Jewish members of the United States Congress. A politician's religion will be a significant factor in the way he votes and in his political attitudes. However "American" is a redundant in the category name. If there were a Muslim congressman, I would be surprised if a category would not be created.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 20:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Carlos got it. Religion has nothing to do with how a politician votes without proof of such, and there isn't any. Secondly, to be perfectly honest, it's only the Christians (who aren't categorized as such) who do that, because they make a point to say "I voted this way because I am a Christian!" In short, the category is insinuating that a Jewish politician has to be categorized as such, but no one else does. African-American isn't a religion, and political party in a political area is relevant. Religion is not when it's only one religion being pointed out en masse.
MSJapan (
talk) 16:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Of course a person's religious belief is liable to affect the way a person votes. Po9liticiasn are not automaton controlled by the party leader.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Afaics Jewish people from one party do not consistently vote differently than Christian people of that party.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename if Kept Congresspeople are required to be American so the article name can be shortened. While this category is hardly defamatory, Wikipedia categories are all over the map for when religion/ethnicity is defining and when it's not.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete This category is built on the assumption that Jewishness is an ethno-religious designation. This was workable more or less in 1975. As of today we are in a situation where it has bifurcated too much. Does
Bernard Saunders belong in this category. He does not claim Jewishness is any meaningful way.
Jason Chaffetz is another example, where he was only even vaguely culturally Jewish but he is clearly a Latter-day Saint at present but that does not neccesarily negate his Jewishness. In an era when more than half the people who identify as Jewish in the US marry people who do not so identify, and when we are moving more and more toward the only people who are Jewish in a sustained way people Orthodox Religious Jews, yet virtually none of the Jews in congress are such, this category no longer has a clear "yes/no" answer of who does and who does not belong.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
If Bernie Sanders says "I'm proud to be Jewish", which he does, how can you say "He does not claim Jewishness is any meaningful way"?
Bus stop (
talk) 13:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: The nominator's rational could have been worded better. Of course categorizing someone as a [ insert Religion or Ethnicity here ] member of Congress is not defamatory by itself. But such categorization has long been used as a method of disparagement, whether real or only perceived. As an example, witness the attempts by political opponents to paint candidate Barack Obama alternately as "Muslim" or "black liberation Christian", even though being Muslim or Christian is not defamatory. Or witness the similar attempts to highlight candidate
John F. Kennedy's Catholicism, even though being a Roman Catholic isn't defamatory; or candidate
Mitt Romney's Mormonism, even though being Mormon isn't defamatory. Or to use a recent example mentioned above, political opponents of Bernie Sanders have tried to paint him as alternately Jewish, or
not Jewish enough, while editors of Wikipedia did likewise (See
this edit summary or
this comment). The bottom line Wikipolicy is this: Encyclopedic coverage of a person's religion and ethnicity, with high-quality reliable sourcing and proper context, is allowed in the body of the article. Wikipedia isn't censored. However, pigeon-holing a person into fixed categories (or Infobox fields) involving religion or ethnicity is only allowed when that person is notable because of that religion or ethnicity. Unless Congressman Smith is referred to in virtually all reliable sources as "Jewish Congressman Smith", and is known not as a Congressman, but instead as a Jewish Congressman, then he is not to be categorized as such. Applicable policy:
WP:BLPCAT: Categories and Infobox fields on religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.
WP:CATGRS: Avoid categorizing people by non-defining characteristics involving gender/ethnicity/sexuality/disability/religion.
WP:NONDEF: A defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose (as opposed to a tabular or list form), the subject as having. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a person should have their own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a person. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category or infobox field should be created for a particular attribute of a person. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the person. In cases where a particular attribute about a person is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, an alternative to the Infobox or Category is preferred.
WP:OCEGRS: People should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.
I suspect that if you go through this category (and its subcategories) and remove every entry that does not meet the above Wikipedia policy requirements to be so categorized, you will likely end up with an empty category -- making it a perfect candidate for deletion.
Xenophrenic (
talk) 19:27, 24 September 2016 (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:Polemicists
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category violates
WP:BLP by accusing people of being polemicists without any citations. There are no requirements for inclusion, so it can be used to attack anyone who's arguments you don't like.
Guy Macon (
talk) 11:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Note: I removed this cat from the pages it was on as a BLP violation. We can re-add if it is determined not to be a BLP violation. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 12:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete While a pedant might claim the category refers to the technical meaning of
polemic, onlookers know that, in common usage, being a polemicist is bad. Whatever meaning is intended by the category, it is rarely a defining feature of a person, and the label is merely the subjective opinion of a particular observer.
Johnuniq (
talk) 12:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Several of the articles - such as
Ayn Rand and
Christopher Hitchens - that Guy Macon removed the category from are about people who are deceased, which means that the category is obviously not a BLP violation in those cases, even though that was the reason he gave for removing it.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 00:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)reply
My mistake. I should have checked to see which ones have been dead for a while and said that I was removing them for being unsourced POV pushing by a drive-by username/possible sock who has a suspicious amount of knowledge about Wikipedia categories for a "new" editor. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 03:21, 30 August 2016 (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:Geography of Earth
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 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_sportspeople
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 to delete. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Kimock: IMO, Jewish sportspeople do constitute a moderately distinct topic, per
Maccabiah Games,
List of Jewish sportspeople, and the
International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame. On a normative level, it may however be discussed whether this categorization contributes to segregation and discrimination more than it does to raising awareness. While I concur with DexDor that all subcategories need to be co-nominated, the nominator might want to further elaborate on these two aspects. Regards,
PanchoS (
talk) 14:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete trivial intersection between religion/ethnicity and occupation; do Jewish sportspeople do their sport differently than their non-Jewish counterparts? If not, then it's trivial. If they do, pray tell how so and back it up with reliable sources.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
In the case of
Sandy Koufax, yes. :) He created a huge news furor when he refused to pitch on Yom Kippur, for the Yankees, in the World Series. There is an inconsistency problem, though, as the nom notes.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep, but - there's definitely a problem. Enough has been written about Jewish sportspeople where I think it is a legitimate subcat. All that being said, are Jews being categorized in occupations, and other religions are not? Are we doing so as an ethnic category or a religious category? This brings up an age-old argument, but I think we need to discuss this in a wider forum.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I do worry sometimes that some of our ethnic categories highlight people that break stereotypes, like
Category:African-American classical musicians, and I wonder if that's happening here. I'll defer to others whether readers would find this category helpful for navigation or not.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 11:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete This category may well have worked 70 years ago, but it is built on a fundamentally antiquated understanding of ethno-religious identies. It does not work with the fluid edges of current Jewish definition.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment If kept we should make this a container category, and force all articles to be in sub-categories where we can demonstrate that the particular overlap of sport and being Jewish in whatever ethnic/cultural/religious or racial way the subject was defined in the complex interaction between the subject and his or her surrounding society was at least generally defining within the sport and preferably particularly defining to the given individual. For example, someone who converted to being Jewish after retiring from playing baseball should not be in this category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment That is was recognized as a dinstict cultural topic 70 years ago does not mean it is today.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
-John seems to have a strong interest in deletion for some reason. But he hasnt read these 15 books. Many are very current. Where is John coming from? Why would he make up this argument?
2604:2000:E016:A700:4484:D7B0:8756:2C26 (
talk) 07:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment The impressive number of sources listed above show us the substantiality of the notion of "Jewish sportspeople".
Bus stop (
talk) 13:18, 24 September 2016 (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:Former National Football League cities
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.
Nominator's rationale: Trivial category. Would be better as a list on the NFL article.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 02:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - certainly a NONDEFINING item. Also, as a time-dependent item, it's problematic. Baltimore, Cleveland, and Houston all had teams leave, and then new teams came in to replace them several years later. So they're both former and current.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as non defining.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 00:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Are we really willing to apply this when a stadium moves from one part of a Metro Area to another?
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:59, 14 September 2016 (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:International League 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
International League is a minor league baseball league in the U.S. I think specific sports leagues Halls of Fame are rarely defining because we already have the same athletes in the league's team player categories and Halls of Fame by their nature recognize people who already have achieved "fame". This one is especially non-defining though because the players are often getting this award for how they performed once they were called up in the major leagues, not how they did in this league. (Contrast this with the
IL MVP Award which is for performance in this league.) The winners of this award are already grouped in
four templates. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- The hall of fame appears to exist as a travelling exhibition. However that does not prevent
WP:OC#AWARD applying.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 20:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - The League itself is AAA minor-league baseball. The players at that level are therefore the most likely to go on to a career in the majors (and thus become notable per ATHLETE); put another way, the award is inheriting from the player. The Hall itself as an organization is erratic; they basically were defunct for four decades, and their induction criteria are unknown, so the weight of the award isn't clear, either. There is only one person in the list of inductees who does not have an article, and that is because he was inducted as an executive. Therefore, the main article's list should be sufficient.
MSJapan (
talk) 16:40, 2 September 2016 (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:Internet Hall of Fame
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.
Leonard Kleinrock designed packet switching in 1964,
Bob Kahn co-invented TCI/IP in 1974, and @
Jimbo Wales: launched an online encyclopedia in 2000. Do we really think any of these 3 people are defined by
an award established in 2012 that recognizes their (much) earlier accomplishments? Like with most halls of fame, this award just reflects the pre-existing fame of the recipients. The winners are currently listed
here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, you'd think the PR cat would be promotional - that's sort of what they do. :) The real question is this - are the "pioneers" self-selected, or are they recognized by others after the fact? If the former, then it's promotional. The latter should be supportable with RS, etc. and should be fine.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete category -- This is typical case of
WP:OC#Award. It is legitimate to have a list article on the award, though it is a fairly recent one, but that does not mean we need a category. No objection to merging, but the articles ought to be in the target already.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 20:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - per Peterkingiron. There's no value in an upmerge as noted.
MSJapan (
talk) 20:27, 1 September 2016 (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.