Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 14:59, 9 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< February 26 February 28 >

February 27

[edit]

Category:Thikanas of Shekhawati

[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. @Marcocapelle and Fayenatic london: list of category contents before deletion is at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 27#Category:Thikanas_of_Shekhawati. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, the category contains modern cities and villages, rather than princely states as the category title seems to imply. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2018 (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:Allegorical paintings by Correggio

[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: dual merge to to Category:Allegorical paintings and Category:Paintings by Correggio. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT: Correggio isn't painting anything new, and two paintings when this is the only subcat is not enough. Mangoe (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2018 (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:Animated allegories

[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. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Probably WP:NON-DEFINING - lots of art has allegorical elements, unclear what the bar for inclusion here is. —swpbT go beyond 16:04, 27 February 2018 (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:Male poets

[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: withdrawn by nominator. @Störm: note that per WP:Cat gender, women poets should not be removed from any other category due to being categorised as women poets. The gendered categories should all be tagged as Non-diffusing_subcategories, as is e.g. Category:German women poets.
Note also that Category:Male poets is one of ten subcats of Category:Male writers by format. A nomination to remove Category:Male poets while leaving the others in place would need to explain why you consider poets an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What's the role of having 'male' cats. I know we should have where necessary like (actor, actress), (male tennis player, female tennis player) but nothing special about 'male poet'? Störm (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you reckon we should not categorise poets in this way, then you should do a group nomination which includes all the subcats. And it will probably be appropriate to merge them rather than delete them: e.g. Category:Finnish male poets should be merged to Category:Finnish poets and Category:Finnish male writers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl I need your advise regarding this. Should I go selective or whole? Almost all 'male cats' were recently created and aren't useful e.g. Category:Pakistani women poets has 6 entries so clearly other all are males and should be in Category:Pakistani male poets so clearly not useful. Close this nom, I'll do it again. Störm (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2018 (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.

Establishments in Portuguese Cape Verde

[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 and merge as nominated. ℯxplicit 05:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming/merging:
Nominator's rationale:. :This was a speedy nomination by @Fayenatic london which had an an opposing view from @Black Falcon, so I bring it here for a full discussion.
I agree with @Fayenatic london: these are all subcats of Category:Establishments in Cape Verde. I see no need to use another name for the colonial era. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at WP:CFDS
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:Hong Kong Eastern Long Lions seasons

[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. – Fayenatic London 19:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: speedy nom by @Le Deluge contested by me due to lack of consensus on title of head article Hong Kong Eastern Basketball Team. However, Hong Kong Eastern Basketball Team appears to be correct since the "Long Lions" is a sponsorship name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
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:Manufacturing

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Production and manufacturing are closely related so it makes sense to have a common Category:Production and manufacturing. It is not clear how subcategory Category:Manufacturing differentiates itself from Category:Production and manufacturing. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In common language, services are neither manufactured nor produced, they are offered or provided. The content of both categories seem to be equally skewed towards a goods/industrial context. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there are common counterexamples to that assertion. Software goes into production and developers speak of development and production environments. Movies are produced, not manufactured. A Broadway show goes into production and is not manufactured. This terminology seems common, see for instance, Production (economics). Manufacturing creates goods, production creates utility. --Mark viking (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- As a historical author writing about the iron industry, I use the two words as antonyms, but frequently have trouble with those who regard them as synonyms. In the iron industry, iron was produced in furnaces and forges (using artificial power), it was then manufactured into nails, locks, hinges, knives, scythes and a host of other goods in a manual process (manufacture). However, I always have to explain they are antonyms, when doing so. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Production is one function of manufacturing. They are not the same thing at all. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, we now have 3 different oppose arguments: manufacturing is a subset of production, production and manufacturing are subsequent processes, and production is a subset of manufacturing. That pretty much confirms that it is difficult to distinguish the two concepts. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 February 16 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This question would seem to be better solved by looking at the subcategories and pages in each of the two categories, and determining whether all of them would correctly fit under the proposed merged category. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2018 (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 alleged rape victims

[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: deleted. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per multiple precedents concerning categories of "rape victims" and "rape survivors" (links below). This category is worse than those because it casts doubt on the account of the survivor.

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstention (category starter). I see how this category is problematic, and good points have been made, so I'm not opposed to deletion. I wish merely to state my rationale for having started the category, if it is of any importance. I noticed that the category for crime victims read, "This category is for articles about people who are known as the victims of a crime, such as murder or rape," yet there was no category for rape victims. I later learned that such a category had been started multiple times, but it was deleted due to the WP:BLP factor of potentially defamatory consequences to an unproven allegation of a crime that is difficult to prove. I wondered if the new wording could provide a solution: signaling only that a person has alleged to have experienced rape, but staying neutral on the veracity of the allegation itself. As for the real-world value of such a move, I reasoned, perhaps rape survivors would be encouraged to see the list of notable individuals who went on to be successful in life despite that devastating experience. EIN (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't like the use of "alleged", but on the broader issue of categorising rape, I reckon that en.wp has been getting it badly wrong for the last 10 years.
As I noted[2] in the January 2103 CFD, we have lots of other categories of victims: see e.g. Car bomb victims‎, Landmine victims, Victims of school bullying, Victims of the Mexican Drug War, etc. If it's okay to label victims of some crimes as victims, then I don't see why rape needs to be an exception.
The problems of definition, WP:DEFININGness and BLP are real, but they apply equally to all the other victim categories. If we can resolve them in those cases, we can also resolve them here.
That those who argue against categorising rape victims are clearly doing so for v honourable reasons ... but the unintended effect has been to treat rape as a "less mentionable" crime. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - legalities? It's illegal in the UK at least. There's one obvious way in which rape victims are different to other victims of crime, that there are specific laws in place to protect them. For instance under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and Sexual Offences Act 2003 victims of rape and sex offences get an automatic right to lifetime anonymity even after a trial, and it's something that the authorities are pretty hot on enforcing. For instance several individuals were fined ~US$1000 for naming the victim of Ched Evans on Twitter and Facebook, and a newspaper was fined over US$100,000 for showing a pixelated photo of the victim of Adam Johnson that was judged enough to identify her. So that's one good reason to proceed with caution in the specific case of sex offences, aside from the moral issues. I know that this CfD is specifically about the US where you have Florida Star v. B. J. F. preventing fines for breaking anonymity even if there are laws against it, but I think this is a case where just because you just about get away with breaking anonymity in one country doesn't mean it's an appropriate thing for a global encyclopedia to do (and what about eg the Amsterdam data centre?).
    More generally, I have a problem with naming "alleged victims" since I come from a jurisdiction where you are innocent until proven guilty - we're pretty hot on only calling people criminals once society in the form of a judge and jury has formally decreed that that an allegation of criminality has actually happened, and we should probably do the same for the other side of the coin. Also you may have reporting restrictions in place, particularly during a trial. So I don't think there should be any "alleged victims of XXX" categories.Le Deluge (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Rape is a particularly heinous crime. This is why in some jurisdictions victims are entitled to anonymity. WP must not breach that. However in many cases it is a very difficult crime to prove, as the perpetrator will allege that sex was consensual. We could have valid and lawful categories for victims of convicted rapists who have waived anonymity or are in a jurisdiction where there is none. The problems of having categories for victims of unconvicted rapists is likely to be similar to having categories for unconvicted rapists. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even without the "alleged" bit, this category seems like a BLP problem - rape can be an especially traumatizing crime for survivors, and I can't imagine all survivors want their Wikipedia page to be a permanent reminder of it. And having "alleged" in the name makes it a pretty definite violation. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I'd say the alleged victim (and by extension the alleged offender) is covered by WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. Plus the bit at the beginning about being subject to US law - AIUI naming rape victims is generally illegal under individual state law but Florida Star v. B. J. F. prevents you being fined for committing that illegal act. Still illegal under US law, depending on what state you're in. But the US is somewhat unusual among Western countries in taking such a purist approach to free speech and I'd imagine that the Amsterdam data centre may be subject to far more stringent laws. But I'd start with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. Le Deluge (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with renaming OK:
A survivor may want the rape to be known about and for good reason in terms of public policy (e.g., is law enforcement adequate?) and with a dead victim there's less consequence for reputational damage to the since-deceased person. Since an entry does not get into a category except by a link to an article, the article would not normally include the rape report or allegation unless sourced, sourcing acceptable to Wikipedia means the report or allegation is already public information, and the BLP policy is sufficient for the survivor who says that the rape did not happen, the category is acceptable and editing for an individual case can and should be done at the article, including by decategorizing when the article no longer supports the categorization.
On alleged or undisputed fact, there is a problem if Jane Doe said she was raped even if the article on her does not name the rapist or alleged rapist but a search of off-Wikimedia sources uncovers that the allegation names John Doe as the rapist but he denies it and it has not been proven. A solution may be to rename as Category:American rape victims (alleged or proven).
In the U.S., but probably not in the U.K., claiming someone is a rapist is libel or slander unless the claim is proven even if the proving is not in a court of law, but most people must be careful about relying on out-of-court proof, evidence on one side often being rebuttable. This might apply to an undisputed public confession, but that's rare. In the U.K., reportedly, lawful but embarrassing content can be suppressed from publication (there was a case involving a man who liked to have sex with a woman in prostitution with Nazi paraphernalia around and a newspaper was ordered not to publish the story or, I think, reveal the order, but foreign press covered it).
Nick Levinson (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Levinson: A survivor may want the rape to be known about For our purposes there is no rape until there's a conviction, as the alleged criminal is innocent until proven guilty. But the situation you're talking about could be categorised in Category:Sexual abuse victims activists. And you completely miss the point that in the UK there is a specific guarantee of anonymity in cases of sexual assault, the libel law is irrelevant. I assume you're talking about the Max Mosley case, where a court found that there had been no Nazi theme to the "party", and the court ordered the newspapers to stop spreading the libel that it had been Nazi themed. It wasn't a question of suppressing something embarassing, it was stopping the press spreading damaging lies about somebody (at least, lies as determined by the court). Still, that's irrelevant to rape anonymity in the UK. Le Deluge (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Le Deluge:
If the rapist or alleged rapist cannot be identified, no BLP issue applies, and that is the case with Andrea Dworkin, who is in the category, because she did not know who did it while she was drugged.
Sexual abuse victim activists can and likely do include activists who were not raped.
A right to nondisclosure differs from an obligation for that same person not to disclose what happened to herself, and recent news reports include many instances of media reporting disclosures by survivors of having been raped including without identification of persons who may have raped and even where an official investigation or court case concluded that a rape had not occurred (the survivor may still wish to disclose in order to challenge whether an investigation was properly conducted). In general, exercise of a right of nondisclosure, being voluntary by definition, should be left to the one who can choose whether to disclose, and that would be the woman who may have been raped.
The Amsterdam server is not under UK law. The category is "American ...", which reduces the relevance of UK law.
As to the report on Nazi paraphernalia, we probably are not talking about the same case, since I heard the man I wrote about interviewed on U.S. radio and he acknowledged what he did. The case you describe properly should not have that content repeated in Wikipeda, as we do not libel people.
Nick Levinson (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Levinson: There's no such thing as a perpetratorless crime. As here - Dworkin effectively named people to a sufficient level of detail (two guys working room service at a Paris hotel on a specific day) for WP:BLP to be relevant. But the Dworkin case highlights the problems with this kind of thing - she was widely believed at the time despite some of the inconsistencies in her story, but by the time of her death even fellow-travellers were referring to it as a "widely disbelieved claim". So the Dworkin incident seems to lack any kind of WP:VERIFIABILITY, at least to the standards Wikipedia would expect. Of course not all activists have been raped, and not all rape victims become activists (but victims notable enough to have Wiki articles probably are activists) - I mention the activist category as one that may provide suitable categorisation with far less problems than a rape victim category..
You mention the Central Park case - there was little doubt that sex occurred (the police recovered semen) and the circumstances might suggest a lack of consent - but even then you would have to wait for a court ruling that there was rape before Wikipedia could say there was a rape victim. But it should be noted that naming her was an explicitly political act by publications with no pretence to NPOV, in contrast to the rest of the media. Thereafter there was no "alleged" about her status as a rape victim, and Wikipedia would have had to follow the official court line on who the rapists were, even if they were falsely accused - anything else would be WP:OR, allthough obviously the controversy could be discussed here.
Honestly, the Mosley case is the only UK "alleged Nazi prostitute" case I can think of in recent times, and Mosley must surely be the only person notable enough to be discussed on foreign radio in that connection. Given that the devil is in the detail for these cases, which often rely on subtle nuances of law, I'd suggest that further discussion in that area is pointless unless you can identify the specific case and the points of law on which it turned.
I've talked about English law as one that I'm familiar with, and which is obviously relevant to the wider hierarchy and as an example of a major jurisdiction which takes a harder line on this stuff than the US - the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 does not limit itself to publication within the UK but explicitly talks about broadcasting into the UK, so on one interpretation a US citizen publishing the names of British rape victims on the internet from the US could be extradited to stand trial in the UK. I've not mentioned Dutch law as I don't know it, but I'd imagine that most European countries have something similar to the UK. Sure, we're talking about a US category, but a) a one-country category hierarchy looks like a WP:SMALLCAT and we should consider the global perspective and b)even in the US my understanding is that naming victims is illegal in most if not all states. Again, I don't know enough on the detail to comment meaningfully on the US legal situation. But I don't think you need to appeal to the law or morality, this category doesn't work just on the grounds of BLP and verifiability.Le Deluge (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BLP and verifiability apply to articles and if the articles still stand under those policies and guidelines and if a given category applies to the resulting article version then the categorization stands under BLP and verifiability. We don't apply those and similar editorial standards to the categorization differently than at the article.
Verifiability is not about the truth of content. For Wikipedia, it has a narrower meaning, the verifiability of a citation and whether the source supports what Wikipedia says is in the source. If we think a source is wrong and find a contrary source, we report and source the multiple perspectives in the Wikipedia article and let readers decide what to believe.
A quick Googling of the question "who raped Andrea Dworkin?" (without quotation marks) did not show me names of alleged rapists, although I could have read more sources. We know the name of Dworkin's first husband but, apparently, not the names of the two males in Paris. There is a precedent in U.S. libel case law about accusing one or more unnamed members of a locality's small legislature in which a court ruled that the claim is actionable by the legislators, but that's because all the legislators and therefore those encompassed by the actionable accusation could be named, whereas it appears that the two males in Paris cannot be identified, especially now when the trail is colder. If so, libel would not attach to them; and it would not attach to the unnamed hotel (Paris doubtless has many hotels). It's fair to assume that, about 19 years later, the two males are still alive; but absent more connecting either of two particular males to her the males do not cause a BLP issue.
I seriously doubt that content on the Internet hosted in one nation can be forbidden in another nation even if accessed by a national or resident of the latter. It could be forbidden on a relay server in the latter nation. Keeping a copy could also be illegal. But if a privately-owned U.S. or U.K. website insults the king of Thailand in a way that would be unlawful in Thailand, that would not give the Thai government a right to extradition or to a shutting down of the website.
While there are privacy laws, privacy is waivable and I don't think it's against the law to publish the names of all rape survivors in the U.S. in any state, although major news media doing so got some severe public reactions and stopped doing it except if the survivor requests reporting of her identity.
Dworkin was disbelieved shortly after the events she described and by many people, although believed by many others then and since. One common claim was that she was unattractive so no one would have raped her. I agree that she did not say enough to support a prosecution. But many crimes occur that go unreported, including rapes. That a report is doubted is not ground for exclusion from Wikipedia and if the reports that do exist are sufficient for weight thence inclusion in a Wikipedia article then the categorization should follow.
The Central Park rape article in Wikipedia does name the survivor and the subsequently-found confessed rapist and the Wikipedia article says he raped her even though no court so ruled. Given what the article says and assuming that he is still alive, there appears to be no BLP issue even for him.
I agree on globalization of the category unless a global category already exists, and it does (Category:Alleged rape victims by nationality). It can be expanded if anyone cares to. But that doesn't change the legal arguments, since those depend on the whereabouts of the servers. Where a visitor to Wikipedia is located is not an issue for Wikimedia requiring different content.
I think renaming would solve the problems you raise. Perhaps someone could suggest another renaming in addition to the redlinked proposal above.
Nick Levinson (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPCRIME and other reasons: I don't have a view at the moment on whether a category for people who are vicitims of convicted rapists is good or not, but categorising somone as a victim of rape when that has not been proven is a serious BLP issue. This conflate those whose allegations have not been put before a court (yet or at all), those whose allegations are currently being tried, those who have been found by a court to be victims of a crime other than rape and those who have been found by a court not to have been raped by those alleged to have raped them (whether because there was insufficient evidence, the alleged avtivities didn't happen, the alleged activities were not illegal or the activities were done by someone other than the accused, or some other reason) and those who other people allege are victims of rape but who have not made that allegation themselves (there are unlikely to be many in this category, but it is possible). In cases where party A alleges they were raped by party B and party B contests this (and there are no concluded legal procedings), this puts too much weight on the views of party A (people are encouraged to always believe the victim, but this is contrary to NPOV). I would additionally say that being an alleged victim of rape is not a defining characterstic - particularly when it is alleged by some that most women in various fields have been the victim of rape and sexual assault (with some comenters not distinguishing the two, unlike the legal systems of most countries). For at least most of the other victim categories mentioned, victimhood can be determined objectively independently of who the perpertrator was (e.g. a victim of a car bomb is objectively a victim of a car bomb regardless of who planted it), but this is not true of a crime like rape where the alleged perpetrator may dispute whether the alleged events happened ("I never had sex with that woman"), whether they constituted rape ("We only had consensual sex"), and/or whether they were the perpertrator ("I believe that this woman was raped, but I was not the rapist") independently of each other. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the appropriate treatment with NPOV, if the Central Park jogger case were to be included (and it legitimately can be), even though the person convicted in the case later had the charge dismissed without objection by the State because of someone else's voluntary admission of having done it with DNA confirmation, we could report the allegation, the conviction, the dismissal, and (regardless of whether the identity is known) the fact of the newly-identified rapist (alleged if he were now to deny it) and thus justify the categorization. As to characterizing the person, I doubtless stubbed my toe but (given notability arguendo) I don't belong in a category of people for whom toes being stubbed is weighty content, but if I had written a book or a major media article about my experience in having stubbed my toe then I'd be fair game for the category, even if I had also climbed a cliff on Saturn and was notable mostly for that. Andrea Dworkin wrote publicly about her experience and we have categorized in multiple ways many a person. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the reasons above, as well as the fact that there are already other categories for rape, including people who were tried for rape, convicted and acquitted. (See Category:Rape.) The history is documented and categorized in any case. Perhaps another category could be created for historical instances of rape, rather than recent survivors like Kesha. TheGreatConsultingDetective (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2018 (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:Dick Sweeney

[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. – Fayenatic London 08:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clearly promotional category with no article on the subject and no articles populating the category. In other words: useless, empty, promotional-only category. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC): edited 01:31, 28 February 2018 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_27&oldid=1138411761"