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: Category only contains one article. It is unlikely that Disney will create more Enchanted video gamed, but if it does, the category can always be recreated. JDDJS (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2014 (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:African-American speculative fiction films
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: Too board of a category. There no clear definition of what an "African-American speculative fiction film" is JDDJS (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is there any proof this is a notable genre? Could an article be written? Moreover, suffers all the problems of a "films about" category: how much about "African-American speculative fiction" must a film be, and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now I don't understand the rationale. Is there an objection against African-American films, or an objection against speculative fiction films? If there isn't an objection against neither of the two, there shouldn't be an objection against the combination either. While if there is an objection against either African-American films or against speculative fiction films then the whole branch should be nominated and not just this intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2014 (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.
Delete per prior result - per continent is not a good way to organize ethnic/community articles. Unless someone can show that Muslim communities in Continent A differ from those in Continent B, but I doubt it, given that general Muslim view that one's religion and one's geographic location are not related (see Ummah vs. Sha'ab). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep The purpose of categories is to help readers navigate to articles and these categories serve that purpose. Certainly, there can no argument that these groups are somehow not important and not interesting subjects of study. Category:Muslim communities in Africa has 11 subcategories and 61 direct articles. Many of these groups are transnational, having existed long before the current African states. Without this category, there is nothing in WP to connect these groups together as being located in Africa. Same with Category:Muslim communities in Asia with its 7 subcats and 6 direct articles. Category:Muslim communities in Europe has 2 subcats and 171 direct articles--but this category needs cleanup as it has many national articles that don't belong here and are very arguably not communities such as are found in the Africa category. Cleanup requirements do not equal deletion. Neither do arguments about the tenants of Islam. These categories are about groups of people, not religious doctrine. Hmains (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the African category is largely about Msulim majority tribes. This contrasts with the by country categories where I am voting differnetly. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2014 (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.
Keep -- This seems to be being properly used. Typically people of a particular ethnicity share a religion. Where that religion is Islam, they are correctly called a "Muslim community". In India, "community" is a euphemism for (often endogamopus) castes. I think the category deleted in April last years was being used for places where there were some Muslims, whether or not this was mentioned in the article. I am open to a rename, if somethign better than "community" can be found, but for the moment it will do. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete We whacked this as a false characterization. The fact that a portion of a population is of a given religion should not be used to ascribe that religion to the ethnicity as such. This is a horrible practice. It reinforces the attempts to stigmatize those who convert to other religions. While Wikipedia is not to right great wrongs, it should not create them, but that is exactly what it does with this false ethnicity=religion type of categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the purpose of this is to categorise ethnic groups as religious groups. This is not necessarily true (see here). Being a certain ethnicity does not guarantee a religious perspective and we should not conflate these trees as it disrespects religious minorities in those groups (see here for a good example of why categorising Uyghur people direclty within the Islam tree is not wise. SFB05:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the earlier deletion was an error; fortunately, we're not bound by precedent. Ethnicity , religion, location, and nationality, all of them exist and make suitable categories separately and in various combinations DGG ( talk ) 09:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the three African items, which are merely repeating tribal categories, usually covering several countries, becuase post-colonial boundaries are no tribal ones. In India, these are effectively Muslim castes: "community" is a euphsmism for the politically incorrect "caste"; similarly in other Asian countries we are dealing with tribes. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The very existence of this category contributes to the marginalization of those in these ethnic groups who chose to not be part of Islam, but some other religion, be it atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2014 (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.
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.
