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: Another CensoredScribe sock category, populated by CS socks. I do not believe this cross-categorization to be defining or particularly commented on by RS's. Half the list are not "aviators" per se but fly spaceships. It's simply something they do, rather than something they are generally known explicitly for. --
ferret (
talk) 23:36, 19 April 2023 (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:YouTube sponsors
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: Non-defining trait. That a company advertises and sponsors content creators on YouTube is irrelevant and not covered by reliable secondary sources. --
ferret (
talk) 16:21, 19 April 2023 (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:Country subdivision templates by subdivision type
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.
This a compound neologism by banned
User:Tobias Conradi, who used 150+ sockpuppets over 5+ years to spam this all over wikipedia, one of the worst cases ever seen. One of the sockpuppets was
User:Country subdivision. Before coming here, he'd been banned at the German wikipedia. These were all supposed to be fixed (and many articles were simply deleted), but sadly others linger a decade later. It is so easy to mass create categories, and so much harder to fix them.
Speedy There's already been a clear consensus for this name recently in CFD. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:49, 20 April 2023 (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:Alumni of the Special military school of Saint-Cyr
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.
Comment Empty category. Next time, consider tagging it CSD C1. LizRead!Talk! 03:45, 22 April 2023 (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:Officers of the Legion of Honour
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:Liberal Moderate 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.
Nominator's rationale: A category of this nature including many BLPs is quite controversial because:
a) The liberal party don't have formal factions, therefore names are arbitrarily added to the category, in many cases, using
WP:OR.
b) Many MPs that are already listed in the category don't have any evidence of being 'Liberal moderate Politicians' –––GMH MELBOURNETALK 14:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support deleting This category is obvious nonsense, there's no such thing as a "Liberal Moderate" lol...just joking...however, this does illustrate my point: these positions are completely subjective, some people think the Greens are to the left of Lenin, most people have a more reasonable view, some think the LNP are to the right of Hitler, but most people take a more reasonable view...it's all subjective opinion - these factions should only be included if there is widespread usage in the media, or formal factions like Labor has. Otherwise its just one editors OR and opinion.
Tambor de Tocino (
talk) 01:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment (leaning to retain). Whether a faction is formalised in any particular manner is not relevant to whether it exists, and therefore to whether it is a significant topic deserving of either a WP article or a WP category. The factions in the LNP are more fluid than those in the ALP (see eg. van Onselen's 2011 essay in the Monthly), but there are real groupings, recognised by both participants and observers, and able to be researched and documented, as they are by Massola but also by others (eg Hawker's 2005 paper in Australian Quarterly). I do not understand the claim regarding OR - the National Right article has an OR template on it, but most of the content is cited. The fact that Massola himself did original research, is not relevant to whether the WP article is OR - it is not, even if it needs improvement. Our concern as editors I think is whether there is a body of knowledge attributable to reliable sources that has sufficient significance to be written about in WP and, in relation to the category, whether there are reliable sources that link a group of articles to a category in a consistent way. I don't doubt that some of the MPs placed in this (or a sister) category don't see themselves in that way, or do not use the label - but our test is whether reliable sources do so, and whether it is meaningful information. I would suggest that they do, and it is.
hamiltonstone (
talk) 13:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: the category makes membership sound much more fixed and definite than it really is, whereas in the few cases where we have a source, it is a single journalist's assessment, and not a self-identification.
StAnselm (
talk) 15:14, 24 April 2023 (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:Liberal Centre-Right 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.
Nominator's rationale: A category of this nature including many BLPs is quite controversial because:
a) The liberal party don't have formal factions, therefore names are arbitrarily added to the category, in many cases, using
WP:OR.
b) Many MPs that are already listed in the category don't have any evidence of being 'Liberal Centre-Right Politicians' –––GMH MELBOURNETALK 14:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi, just a comment: The Centre Right (Liberal Party of Australia) article is a pretty dubious article, it should probably be deleted, it's based largely on OR. The coalition has no formal factions and the rest is subjective speculation.
Support delete I'm a keen observer of Australian politics, and I've never heard a term resembling anything like a "Liberal National Right politician" or "Liberal Centre-Right politicians" used in mainstream reportage. The coalition has no formal factions, not like Labor's Socialist Left/Labor Left, Unity/Labor Right Factions. This is all original research. We'd need to see these terms used regularly in mainstream press for them to be included here. I'm not sure why the categories were ever created (Joke: I mean the entire LNP is far-right as far as I'm concerned :P)
Tambor de Tocino (
talk) 01:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: the category makes membership sound much more fixed and definite than it really is, whereas in the few cases where we have a source, it is a single journalist's assessment, and not a self-identification.
StAnselm (
talk) 15:15, 24 April 2023 (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:Fictional traceurs and freerunners
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: Generally non-defining trait. Originally created by a CensoredScribe sock, and mostly populated by subsequent socks. There are some characters were this is a bit of a trait, such as
Faith Connors which was a game essentially focused on parkour, but for most of these it's unsourced and not mentioned at all in their articles. --
ferret (
talk) 14:02, 19 April 2023 (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:Fictional left-handed character
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: Non-defining trait, and most entries have been unsourced. Category created by and populated by CensoredScribe sockpuppets. --
ferret (
talk) 14:00, 19 April 2023 (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:Wadi Jib
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:Eponymous category for a topic without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant an eponymous category. As always, everything that exists does not always get its own eponymous category just to contain itself -- but the only thing filed here is the eponym.
Bearcat (
talk) 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is a speedy:
WP:C2F.
Oculi (
talk) 13:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Category has been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 01:55, 25 April 2023 (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:Ex-Jews
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.
Just delete, former Orthodox Jews are not former Jews, at least not by default. And we do not need a parent category for just
Category:Converts from Judaism.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete — Humanistic, Reconstructionist, and Reform Jews are neither "ex-" nor "former" Jews (at least among my family and friends), merely they reject Orthodox practices. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 13:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename per
WP:C2C (
Category:People by former religion). Once renamed, we should further refine it. As I noted in the other CfR, we still need to figure out a way to say that "Former Jews" means "former believers in the religion of Judaism" (
Apostasy in Judaism), as opposed to Jews who have culturally/socially/etc. assimilated and are no longer "Jewish" in that sense (
Jewish assimilation). (Despite what some people might say, the latter is a thing.) I had proposed "Apostates from Judaism" per
WP:C2D main article
Apostasy in Judaism, which is not as ambiguous as "former Jews" / "ex-Jews", but "apostate" is sometimes used as a pejorative term and was therefore opposed by one user. I'm open to many alternatives, but it should be a next step after the speedy rename. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 21:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
We've tried to get rid of
Category:People by former religion in the past, as it has always been full of disputed material. Please don't take us down the road of apostasy. Have you forgotten that Conservative and Reform and other Jews cannot marry in Israel? Most of the Jewish diaspora is viewed as apostate by hasidic and orthodox. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 16:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I certainly don't approve of "apostate" as a swearword / pejorative. How pious or freethinking one can be surely should be an individual person's business. But I think
Category:People by former religion should exist, and one subcategory of that should be people who are former believers of Judaism. We just gotta make sure that's a different group from people who no longer associate with "Jewishness" in any other sense anymore either (which surely should be an individual person's business as well). If you know of a good way of distinguishing these two groups, I'm all ears. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 04:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, as
Category:Converts from Judaism (a far better category name imo) is the only category that properly fits within this one, and it's a redundant term. –
bradv 03:26, 27 April 2023 (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:Disestablishments in the Dutch Empire by year
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:merge/delete all as nominated. –
FayenaticLondon 17:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose (I sympathize with the nomination but...) years, year establishments and year disestablishments are always created in tandem as far as I am aware of.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: Hmm, it seems like disestablishments would always be smaller since everything starts but not everything stops (e.g. when existing populated places were founded). Does it aid navigation to tie them together? -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
@
RevelationDirect: well, when you are interested in reading all what happened in a certain year, then you will no longer find the disestablishments in there after this merge.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm, I was thinking a reader at the article level some might be years and others decade at the bottom anyway. Appreciate your different perspective from someone navigating at the category level. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose with regards to the Dutch East Indies ones. I would say some of them do have room for growth because the coverage of historical Dutch colonial topics and/or Indonesian history is still quite poor on EN Wiki. There are political parties, newspapers with large circulations, and other historical business types which only have very partial coverage so far and yet which would be historically notable. Many of these have years of founding and closing down. Regarding the Antilles one I don't know much and don't have much of an opinion. I think there we're talking about colonies with quite small populations and not the millions, right?
Dan Carkner (
talk) 17:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge for Now with no objection to recreation if they ever grow to 5+ articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
As someone who created some of these when I created an article and found that year was missing, I do not object to this, although I suspect if someone in the future was not aware of this discussion they may go ahead and do as I did regardless. But if it tidies the surplus of small categories here I understand the logic behind doing so.
Dan Carkner (
talk) 18:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Often times the (dis)establishment category is the only cat/article in YYYY in country. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 12:05, 20 April 2023 (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:Society of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
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.
Rename. Strongly oppose split as the differences in category names appear to be historical accidents of naming, and separating the hierarchies would be detrimental to the topic. It has not been demonstrated that Sahrawi society is sufficiently different within
Sahrawi refugee camps (in Algeria), as opposed to Western Sahara, for a second Society hierarchy to be useful for navigation. Instead, we should speedily rename e.g.
Category:Feminism in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic to
Category:Feminism in Western Sahara to match the majority of the hierarchy. –
FayenaticLondon 22:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Without contradicting my earlier split proposal I can support this rename too, provided that there is a manual check that articles which belong in the tree of
Category:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic stay in that tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is a dispute that concerns factual matters. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 09:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak rename as a slightly better name.
Place Clichy (
talk) 11:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 10:38, 19 April 2023 (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.
Wildfires in North America by year
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: merge, redundant category layer, apart from the US subcategories (which are not nominated) these categories mostly contain 0-3 articles. Also note that there aren't any other wildfires by year and continent categories. A dual merge is not needed, all articles are about Canada and are already in
Category:21st-century wildfires in Canada and in a "year disasters in Canada" category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:35, 19 April 2023 (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:Duologies
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: A "duology" is not actually a dictionary term, merely a neologism used mostly in genre fiction to describe a series of two works. Even if it were a word, there is no evidence that the majority of these "series of two" works are bona fide "duologies" in the same way that trilogies are, i.e. a conceived as such from inception, rather than merely being a film with a sequel, etc. See also the two previous deletion discussions on the article
here and
here. --
woodensuperman 08:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Duology isn't a neologism at all, it was in use in the 19th c. already to refer to e.g. the Iliad and Odyssea
[1][2], or to pairs of musical compositions
[3]. Being infrequently or rarely used doesn't make something a neologism.
Fram (
talk) 10:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
No that doesn't make any sense. Neologism is a new word. If the word exists for a long time, it is by definition not a neologism. Assuming words not in the dictionary are neologisms makes no sense. It assumes that the dictionary is a compendium of all words that ever existed, which is patently false. Different dictionaries even lists how many words each contains, and have differing amounts and different word lists, with dictionaries even dropping words to keep their compact form. It would be like saying that any topic not already in Wikipedia is a topic that did not exist before Wikipedias was created, which is also a false statement. --
64.229.90.172 (
talk) 17:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
It could be a serial form of neologism, i.e. people keep coinging it but it never receives/d any traction. In any case we're digressing. Whatever you want to call it, the word isn't a dictionary defined word so we should not be using it here or anywhere else in our articles. --
woodensuperman 11:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, the category does not contain any article in which a pair of works is discussed as a duology.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as most of the entries are just films with sequels. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:57, 25 April 2023 (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:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation
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, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' nationality.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support. Nothing defining about this intersection. The merge target is sufficient to convey the ancestry notion, if that is defining.
Place Clichy (
talk) 12:29, 20 April 2023 (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:Canadian people by occupation and ethnic or national origin
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:WP:OCEGRS: triple intersection of occupation and nationality and descent is not defining.
Note: after removal of sportspeople, only gangsters and politicians remain. None have a main article. No combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. Politicians should already be in subcategories of
Category:Canadian politicians.
Support, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' nationality. Perhaps gangsters of Italian/Sicilian descent are involved in the mafia, but if so they should be in a mafia category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge per nom and Marcocapelle. Organized crime is one of the few areas where ethnicity of the groups is actually defining, but that does not necessarily involve descent. In the US, some Irishmen and Jews acquired fame in the otherwise Sicilian-led mafia.
Place Clichy (
talk) 12:32, 20 April 2023 (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:Liberal National Right 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.
Nominator's rationale: A category of this nature including many BLPs is quite controversial because:
a) The liberal party don't have formal factions, therefore names are arbitrarily added to the category, in many cases, using
WP:OR.
b) Many MPs that are already listed in the category don't have any evidence of being 'Liberal National Right Politicians' –––GMH MELBOURNETALK 05:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support delete I'm a keen observer of Australian politics, and this is pretty obvious partisan sledging. Never heard a term resembling anything like a "Liberal National Right politician" used in mainstream reportage.
Can you explain what you mean by "partisan sledging"? These factions or groupings are periodically discussed in relation to the internal dynamics of LNP governments/oppositions, just as Labor's factions are periodically discussed in the context of the dynamics of Labor governments/oppositions. What is partisan? and what is sledging here?
hamiltonstone (
talk) 13:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per the above.
StAnselm (
talk) 01:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment (leaning to retain). Repeating my comment from category deletion discussion above: Whether a faction is formalised in any particular manner is not relevant to whether it exists, and therefore to whether it is a significant topic deserving of either a WP article or a WP category. The factions in the LNP are more fluid than those in the ALP (see eg. van Onselen's 2011 essay in the Monthly), but there are real groupings, recognised by both participants and observers, and able to be researched and documented, as they are by Massola but also by others (eg Hawker's 2005 paper in Australian Quarterly). I do not understand the claim regarding OR - the National Right article has an OR template on it, but most of the content is cited. The fact that Massola himself did original research, is not relevant to whether the WP article is OR - it is not, even if it needs improvement. Our concern as editors I think is whether there is a body of knowledge attributable to reliable sources that has sufficient significance to be written about in WP and, in relation to the category, whether there are reliable sources that link a group of articles to a category in a consistent way. I don't doubt that some of the MPs placed in this (or a sister) category don't see themselves in that way, or do not use the label - but our test is whether reliable sources do so, and whether it is meaningful information. I would suggest that they do, and it is.
hamiltonstone (
talk) 13:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep – Some editors seem to misunderstand what a faction is and how we can categorise politicians. The National Right is a real faction, even though it isn't formally organised, and we have solid sourcing for some politicans who have identified with it. The article is dodgy and should be deleted, but the category isn't and shouldn't be. 5225C (
talk •
contributions) 13:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is not a proposal to delete any wikipedia article but rather a category that has become an OR magnet and has no evidence of being defining for most politicians in it. (
t ·
c) buidhe 08:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Understand, but the claim about OR also lacks substantiation and is not being addressed on the talk pages, which surely would be the first step. An editor recently removed the list of names from the article, claiming OR, yet there was a citation for that list, which does indeed contain the names in the article. The OR claim itself there is problematic. I also don't really understand the motivation of editors in this - given that there are references, why is there such a drive to avoid this topic being covered? Just because LNP factions are organised differently and more loosely than Labor factions, doesn't mean they do not exist.
hamiltonstone (
talk) 11:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The cited article contained some of the names in the list, but not most of them.
StAnselm (
talk) 15:17, 24 April 2023 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Another CensoredScribe sock category, populated by CS socks. I do not believe this cross-categorization to be defining or particularly commented on by RS's. Half the list are not "aviators" per se but fly spaceships. It's simply something they do, rather than something they are generally known explicitly for. --
ferret (
talk) 23:36, 19 April 2023 (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:YouTube sponsors
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: Non-defining trait. That a company advertises and sponsors content creators on YouTube is irrelevant and not covered by reliable secondary sources. --
ferret (
talk) 16:21, 19 April 2023 (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:Country subdivision templates by subdivision type
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.
This a compound neologism by banned
User:Tobias Conradi, who used 150+ sockpuppets over 5+ years to spam this all over wikipedia, one of the worst cases ever seen. One of the sockpuppets was
User:Country subdivision. Before coming here, he'd been banned at the German wikipedia. These were all supposed to be fixed (and many articles were simply deleted), but sadly others linger a decade later. It is so easy to mass create categories, and so much harder to fix them.
Speedy There's already been a clear consensus for this name recently in CFD. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:49, 20 April 2023 (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:Alumni of the Special military school of Saint-Cyr
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.
Comment Empty category. Next time, consider tagging it CSD C1. LizRead!Talk! 03:45, 22 April 2023 (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:Officers of the Legion of Honour
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:Liberal Moderate 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.
Nominator's rationale: A category of this nature including many BLPs is quite controversial because:
a) The liberal party don't have formal factions, therefore names are arbitrarily added to the category, in many cases, using
WP:OR.
b) Many MPs that are already listed in the category don't have any evidence of being 'Liberal moderate Politicians' –––GMH MELBOURNETALK 14:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support deleting This category is obvious nonsense, there's no such thing as a "Liberal Moderate" lol...just joking...however, this does illustrate my point: these positions are completely subjective, some people think the Greens are to the left of Lenin, most people have a more reasonable view, some think the LNP are to the right of Hitler, but most people take a more reasonable view...it's all subjective opinion - these factions should only be included if there is widespread usage in the media, or formal factions like Labor has. Otherwise its just one editors OR and opinion.
Tambor de Tocino (
talk) 01:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment (leaning to retain). Whether a faction is formalised in any particular manner is not relevant to whether it exists, and therefore to whether it is a significant topic deserving of either a WP article or a WP category. The factions in the LNP are more fluid than those in the ALP (see eg. van Onselen's 2011 essay in the Monthly), but there are real groupings, recognised by both participants and observers, and able to be researched and documented, as they are by Massola but also by others (eg Hawker's 2005 paper in Australian Quarterly). I do not understand the claim regarding OR - the National Right article has an OR template on it, but most of the content is cited. The fact that Massola himself did original research, is not relevant to whether the WP article is OR - it is not, even if it needs improvement. Our concern as editors I think is whether there is a body of knowledge attributable to reliable sources that has sufficient significance to be written about in WP and, in relation to the category, whether there are reliable sources that link a group of articles to a category in a consistent way. I don't doubt that some of the MPs placed in this (or a sister) category don't see themselves in that way, or do not use the label - but our test is whether reliable sources do so, and whether it is meaningful information. I would suggest that they do, and it is.
hamiltonstone (
talk) 13:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: the category makes membership sound much more fixed and definite than it really is, whereas in the few cases where we have a source, it is a single journalist's assessment, and not a self-identification.
StAnselm (
talk) 15:14, 24 April 2023 (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:Liberal Centre-Right 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.
Nominator's rationale: A category of this nature including many BLPs is quite controversial because:
a) The liberal party don't have formal factions, therefore names are arbitrarily added to the category, in many cases, using
WP:OR.
b) Many MPs that are already listed in the category don't have any evidence of being 'Liberal Centre-Right Politicians' –––GMH MELBOURNETALK 14:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi, just a comment: The Centre Right (Liberal Party of Australia) article is a pretty dubious article, it should probably be deleted, it's based largely on OR. The coalition has no formal factions and the rest is subjective speculation.
Support delete I'm a keen observer of Australian politics, and I've never heard a term resembling anything like a "Liberal National Right politician" or "Liberal Centre-Right politicians" used in mainstream reportage. The coalition has no formal factions, not like Labor's Socialist Left/Labor Left, Unity/Labor Right Factions. This is all original research. We'd need to see these terms used regularly in mainstream press for them to be included here. I'm not sure why the categories were ever created (Joke: I mean the entire LNP is far-right as far as I'm concerned :P)
Tambor de Tocino (
talk) 01:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: the category makes membership sound much more fixed and definite than it really is, whereas in the few cases where we have a source, it is a single journalist's assessment, and not a self-identification.
StAnselm (
talk) 15:15, 24 April 2023 (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:Fictional traceurs and freerunners
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: Generally non-defining trait. Originally created by a CensoredScribe sock, and mostly populated by subsequent socks. There are some characters were this is a bit of a trait, such as
Faith Connors which was a game essentially focused on parkour, but for most of these it's unsourced and not mentioned at all in their articles. --
ferret (
talk) 14:02, 19 April 2023 (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:Fictional left-handed character
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: Non-defining trait, and most entries have been unsourced. Category created by and populated by CensoredScribe sockpuppets. --
ferret (
talk) 14:00, 19 April 2023 (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:Wadi Jib
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:Eponymous category for a topic without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant an eponymous category. As always, everything that exists does not always get its own eponymous category just to contain itself -- but the only thing filed here is the eponym.
Bearcat (
talk) 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is a speedy:
WP:C2F.
Oculi (
talk) 13:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Category has been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 01:55, 25 April 2023 (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:Ex-Jews
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.
Just delete, former Orthodox Jews are not former Jews, at least not by default. And we do not need a parent category for just
Category:Converts from Judaism.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete — Humanistic, Reconstructionist, and Reform Jews are neither "ex-" nor "former" Jews (at least among my family and friends), merely they reject Orthodox practices. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 13:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename per
WP:C2C (
Category:People by former religion). Once renamed, we should further refine it. As I noted in the other CfR, we still need to figure out a way to say that "Former Jews" means "former believers in the religion of Judaism" (
Apostasy in Judaism), as opposed to Jews who have culturally/socially/etc. assimilated and are no longer "Jewish" in that sense (
Jewish assimilation). (Despite what some people might say, the latter is a thing.) I had proposed "Apostates from Judaism" per
WP:C2D main article
Apostasy in Judaism, which is not as ambiguous as "former Jews" / "ex-Jews", but "apostate" is sometimes used as a pejorative term and was therefore opposed by one user. I'm open to many alternatives, but it should be a next step after the speedy rename. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 21:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
We've tried to get rid of
Category:People by former religion in the past, as it has always been full of disputed material. Please don't take us down the road of apostasy. Have you forgotten that Conservative and Reform and other Jews cannot marry in Israel? Most of the Jewish diaspora is viewed as apostate by hasidic and orthodox. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 16:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I certainly don't approve of "apostate" as a swearword / pejorative. How pious or freethinking one can be surely should be an individual person's business. But I think
Category:People by former religion should exist, and one subcategory of that should be people who are former believers of Judaism. We just gotta make sure that's a different group from people who no longer associate with "Jewishness" in any other sense anymore either (which surely should be an individual person's business as well). If you know of a good way of distinguishing these two groups, I'm all ears. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 04:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, as
Category:Converts from Judaism (a far better category name imo) is the only category that properly fits within this one, and it's a redundant term. –
bradv 03:26, 27 April 2023 (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:Disestablishments in the Dutch Empire by year
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:merge/delete all as nominated. –
FayenaticLondon 17:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose (I sympathize with the nomination but...) years, year establishments and year disestablishments are always created in tandem as far as I am aware of.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: Hmm, it seems like disestablishments would always be smaller since everything starts but not everything stops (e.g. when existing populated places were founded). Does it aid navigation to tie them together? -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
@
RevelationDirect: well, when you are interested in reading all what happened in a certain year, then you will no longer find the disestablishments in there after this merge.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm, I was thinking a reader at the article level some might be years and others decade at the bottom anyway. Appreciate your different perspective from someone navigating at the category level. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose with regards to the Dutch East Indies ones. I would say some of them do have room for growth because the coverage of historical Dutch colonial topics and/or Indonesian history is still quite poor on EN Wiki. There are political parties, newspapers with large circulations, and other historical business types which only have very partial coverage so far and yet which would be historically notable. Many of these have years of founding and closing down. Regarding the Antilles one I don't know much and don't have much of an opinion. I think there we're talking about colonies with quite small populations and not the millions, right?
Dan Carkner (
talk) 17:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge for Now with no objection to recreation if they ever grow to 5+ articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
As someone who created some of these when I created an article and found that year was missing, I do not object to this, although I suspect if someone in the future was not aware of this discussion they may go ahead and do as I did regardless. But if it tidies the surplus of small categories here I understand the logic behind doing so.
Dan Carkner (
talk) 18:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Often times the (dis)establishment category is the only cat/article in YYYY in country. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 12:05, 20 April 2023 (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:Society of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
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.
Rename. Strongly oppose split as the differences in category names appear to be historical accidents of naming, and separating the hierarchies would be detrimental to the topic. It has not been demonstrated that Sahrawi society is sufficiently different within
Sahrawi refugee camps (in Algeria), as opposed to Western Sahara, for a second Society hierarchy to be useful for navigation. Instead, we should speedily rename e.g.
Category:Feminism in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic to
Category:Feminism in Western Sahara to match the majority of the hierarchy. –
FayenaticLondon 22:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Without contradicting my earlier split proposal I can support this rename too, provided that there is a manual check that articles which belong in the tree of
Category:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic stay in that tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is a dispute that concerns factual matters. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 09:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak rename as a slightly better name.
Place Clichy (
talk) 11:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 10:38, 19 April 2023 (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.
Wildfires in North America by year
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: merge, redundant category layer, apart from the US subcategories (which are not nominated) these categories mostly contain 0-3 articles. Also note that there aren't any other wildfires by year and continent categories. A dual merge is not needed, all articles are about Canada and are already in
Category:21st-century wildfires in Canada and in a "year disasters in Canada" category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:35, 19 April 2023 (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:Duologies
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: A "duology" is not actually a dictionary term, merely a neologism used mostly in genre fiction to describe a series of two works. Even if it were a word, there is no evidence that the majority of these "series of two" works are bona fide "duologies" in the same way that trilogies are, i.e. a conceived as such from inception, rather than merely being a film with a sequel, etc. See also the two previous deletion discussions on the article
here and
here. --
woodensuperman 08:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Duology isn't a neologism at all, it was in use in the 19th c. already to refer to e.g. the Iliad and Odyssea
[1][2], or to pairs of musical compositions
[3]. Being infrequently or rarely used doesn't make something a neologism.
Fram (
talk) 10:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
No that doesn't make any sense. Neologism is a new word. If the word exists for a long time, it is by definition not a neologism. Assuming words not in the dictionary are neologisms makes no sense. It assumes that the dictionary is a compendium of all words that ever existed, which is patently false. Different dictionaries even lists how many words each contains, and have differing amounts and different word lists, with dictionaries even dropping words to keep their compact form. It would be like saying that any topic not already in Wikipedia is a topic that did not exist before Wikipedias was created, which is also a false statement. --
64.229.90.172 (
talk) 17:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
It could be a serial form of neologism, i.e. people keep coinging it but it never receives/d any traction. In any case we're digressing. Whatever you want to call it, the word isn't a dictionary defined word so we should not be using it here or anywhere else in our articles. --
woodensuperman 11:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, the category does not contain any article in which a pair of works is discussed as a duology.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as most of the entries are just films with sequels. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:57, 25 April 2023 (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:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation
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, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' nationality.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support. Nothing defining about this intersection. The merge target is sufficient to convey the ancestry notion, if that is defining.
Place Clichy (
talk) 12:29, 20 April 2023 (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:Canadian people by occupation and ethnic or national origin
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:WP:OCEGRS: triple intersection of occupation and nationality and descent is not defining.
Note: after removal of sportspeople, only gangsters and politicians remain. None have a main article. No combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. Politicians should already be in subcategories of
Category:Canadian politicians.
Support, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' nationality. Perhaps gangsters of Italian/Sicilian descent are involved in the mafia, but if so they should be in a mafia category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge per nom and Marcocapelle. Organized crime is one of the few areas where ethnicity of the groups is actually defining, but that does not necessarily involve descent. In the US, some Irishmen and Jews acquired fame in the otherwise Sicilian-led mafia.
Place Clichy (
talk) 12:32, 20 April 2023 (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:Liberal National Right 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.
Nominator's rationale: A category of this nature including many BLPs is quite controversial because:
a) The liberal party don't have formal factions, therefore names are arbitrarily added to the category, in many cases, using
WP:OR.
b) Many MPs that are already listed in the category don't have any evidence of being 'Liberal National Right Politicians' –––GMH MELBOURNETALK 05:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support delete I'm a keen observer of Australian politics, and this is pretty obvious partisan sledging. Never heard a term resembling anything like a "Liberal National Right politician" used in mainstream reportage.
Can you explain what you mean by "partisan sledging"? These factions or groupings are periodically discussed in relation to the internal dynamics of LNP governments/oppositions, just as Labor's factions are periodically discussed in the context of the dynamics of Labor governments/oppositions. What is partisan? and what is sledging here?
hamiltonstone (
talk) 13:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per the above.
StAnselm (
talk) 01:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment (leaning to retain). Repeating my comment from category deletion discussion above: Whether a faction is formalised in any particular manner is not relevant to whether it exists, and therefore to whether it is a significant topic deserving of either a WP article or a WP category. The factions in the LNP are more fluid than those in the ALP (see eg. van Onselen's 2011 essay in the Monthly), but there are real groupings, recognised by both participants and observers, and able to be researched and documented, as they are by Massola but also by others (eg Hawker's 2005 paper in Australian Quarterly). I do not understand the claim regarding OR - the National Right article has an OR template on it, but most of the content is cited. The fact that Massola himself did original research, is not relevant to whether the WP article is OR - it is not, even if it needs improvement. Our concern as editors I think is whether there is a body of knowledge attributable to reliable sources that has sufficient significance to be written about in WP and, in relation to the category, whether there are reliable sources that link a group of articles to a category in a consistent way. I don't doubt that some of the MPs placed in this (or a sister) category don't see themselves in that way, or do not use the label - but our test is whether reliable sources do so, and whether it is meaningful information. I would suggest that they do, and it is.
hamiltonstone (
talk) 13:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep – Some editors seem to misunderstand what a faction is and how we can categorise politicians. The National Right is a real faction, even though it isn't formally organised, and we have solid sourcing for some politicans who have identified with it. The article is dodgy and should be deleted, but the category isn't and shouldn't be. 5225C (
talk •
contributions) 13:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is not a proposal to delete any wikipedia article but rather a category that has become an OR magnet and has no evidence of being defining for most politicians in it. (
t ·
c) buidhe 08:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Understand, but the claim about OR also lacks substantiation and is not being addressed on the talk pages, which surely would be the first step. An editor recently removed the list of names from the article, claiming OR, yet there was a citation for that list, which does indeed contain the names in the article. The OR claim itself there is problematic. I also don't really understand the motivation of editors in this - given that there are references, why is there such a drive to avoid this topic being covered? Just because LNP factions are organised differently and more loosely than Labor factions, doesn't mean they do not exist.
hamiltonstone (
talk) 11:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The cited article contained some of the names in the list, but not most of them.
StAnselm (
talk) 15:17, 24 April 2023 (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.