Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 12

< September 11	September 13 >

September 12

Category:Supporters of George W. Bush

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Supporters of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Media supporters of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Political supporters of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Like the "Category:Critics of George W. Bush" which has already been deleted, these categories are vague and inherently POV. They're also not well populated with names. DiePerfekteWelle 23:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brammen 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - will be filled with OR.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasoning as the discussion for Category:Critics of George W. Bush. --Cswrye 02:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "fans" and "critics" categories as vague, POV, and/or trivial.-choster 13:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussions of August 11 and August 30. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom TerryJ-Ho
Delete per nom and discussions. Doczilla 20:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Weaponlord

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 12:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have never used CFD, so I am unsure of what justifies the deletion here. I was the creator of the category, to group all the Weaponlord characters with the article on the game. However, since then, the character articles have been deleted, and this category will stand with this article (or perhaps one or two others) indefinately, and I simply believe that it is obsolete. J Milburn 22:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, eternally underpopulated. --tjstrf 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, however, as the author you could have just tagged it with {{db-author}} -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thought that may be the case, but I was unsure of the rules relating to categories. J Milburn 20:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per author above - jc37 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional narcissists

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, category is subjective. A large number of criteria for inclusion are listed, however not one of them gives an objective basis for inclusion. It also includes a rather strange selection of characters, such as Tigger. Additionally, if it were to be broadly defined and extended to include every megalomaniac, the end result would be unmanagably huge. --tjstrf 22:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom ...And Beyond! 00:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked User:...And Beyond! as a sockpuppet. Please ignore his contributions.-Runcorn 18:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless List of fictional narcissists is successfully AfDed, as it is the parent list of this category. Also note that many similar categories/lists to this have been kept. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darl Shikari.I'm going to work on removing the characters that don't need to be in there.Hmrox 20:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UnDeRsCoRe 21:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The comment about Tigger is odd - well-known fictional character and obviously a narcissist.--Holdenhurst 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tigger, a narcissist? Howso? --tjstrf 18:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify to above named list, and then Delete - jc37 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - INVOKES POV. Comments by keep-voters above regarding Tigger illustrate the subjective nature of the whole category. Doczilla 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. On the one hand, supporting the And Beyond guy's opinion feels wrong, but on the other hand, I'm a professional who knows the clinical meaning of narcissist and I don't like seeing it misused. Moreover, I just hate vague, POV-dependent categories. Doczilla 20:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. A list like this is impossible to maintain without original research. Since hardly any character will be clearly labeled "narcissist" by its creator, that labelling would have to be done by WP editors. And with a fuzzy label like narcissism deciding who is one and who isn't would require quite a judgement call. Interesting category, but unmaintainable per WP rules. --Frescard 03:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Deadliest natural disasters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deadliest natural disasters into Category:Natural disasters

Merge, Where is the dividing line between what does and what does not go in this category? Too subjective. Tim! 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NPOV. Michael 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As above.--Holdenhurst 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify to List of deadliest natural disasters then merge to Category:Natural disasters - jc37 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Recury 19:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Pinot noir

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pinot Noir is a grape variety. There were only two members of this category: one of which was the article on Pinot Noir itself. --Portnadler 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could both be mentioned in article. Michael 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overcategorization at present. -choster 18:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

People by religion and occupation

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for all the reasons given below. Bellbird 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was making a snide joke. This is coming close to WP:Point violation.--T. Anthony 16:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many occupations where a persons religion is actually relevent. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the content of all "by religion" categories should be reduced according to the German solution and further subcategorizing by occupation would be pointless. For data mining purposes, you can always use the category intersection tool at the tools server (if it's not down). --Pjacobi 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of us are that techy, I'd have no idea how to use that. And although the German system is interesting it sounds like a massive reorganization for little real reason.--T. Anthony 17:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep We might as well delete the articles too. There is deletionism, and there is POV-pushing ad extremum, which this nomination indubitably shows. Enough is enough, this is relevant and helpful information, which should not be removed except on a case-by-case basis if it fails out guidelines of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. -- Avi 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories should be used only for primary characteristics and not as a poor man database tool. Pavel Vozenilek 21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel, have you read the opening paragraphs to Wikipedia:Categorization and Help:Category? -- Avi 23:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:NOT? ...And Beyond! 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked User:...And Beyond! as a sockpuppet. Please ignore his contributions.-Runcorn 18:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being a sage, a guru , a missionairy and stuff are all occupations. Also many people really find that their religion helps them in their work. A good example is the relationship between Vedic Mathematics and Category:Hindu mathematicians (most of whom are from Vedic "pre-1000CE" times.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per all other categories. ...And Beyond! 00:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked User:...And Beyond! as a sockpuppet. Please ignore his contributions.-Runcorn 18:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance see Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. Encyclopedias do not need categories for the religion or ethnicity of every last human on Earth. There is ZERO Wikipedia:Notability to know the religious status or ethnicity of any important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that. IZAK 08:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In cases where the subject's religion is important to his or her occupation the occupation is usually religion-related. Otherwise the category is clutter. Osomec 13:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category has subcategories on musicians and writers. There are Gospel or Qawwali singers and Christian writers who are not ordained or deemed theologians.--T. Anthony 16:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T. Anthony: You are throwing in a red herring here, because no-one said that people need "ordination" or must be deemed to be "theologians" to qualify as notable. If in fact anyone has done something noteworthy for their faith and is recognized as such, hence meeting the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability then their faith is obviously important to who they are regardless of their not being ordained or qualified theologians. But to mention the religion of every Tom-Dick-and-Jane makes no sense, especially when there are so many variant ways of doing it and add to it that the very people themselves do not classify themselves as such. IZAK 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. If the person does Christian or religious music doesn't it seem more straightforward to put them in Category:Christian musicians or Category:Muslim musicians? A general category of Christians or even "Christians known for religious work" could get way overfull, same with Muslims. (Less so with Judaism as it's a much smaller religion) And if you're going to have that plus writers why not a "by occupation" category? Granted the two examples I gave would possibly be better served by say a Category for religion and the arts.--T. Anthony 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a tool for you to practice your hobby of categorizing people by their religious practice or background, T. Anthony. Please treat this as what it is, an encyclopedia. ...And Beyond! 01:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked User:...And Beyond! as a sockpuppet. Please ignore his contributions.-Runcorn 18:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia people are rarely if ever categorized at all except alphabetically. Please treat this like what it is, a Wikipedia, rather than what you wish it to be.--T. Anthony 10:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I know what red herring means, placing a link to it seems a bit patronizing.--T. Anthony 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per very straightforward Wikipedia categorization policy. All three of these nominations could be WP:POINT violations. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Dark_Shikari: And you may be in violation of WP:FAITH. IZAK 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No s/he's not. I made a sarcastic comment about putting this up for delete and almost immediately afterward it was put up for delete. It's not unreasonable to see that as odd.--T. Anthony 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per T. Anthony; I strongly agree with him.--Poetlister 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's the point of having categories if you can't have ones like this?--Holdenhurst 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nom was apparently the result of a mis-communication between T. Anthony and Bellbird. - jc37 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete per nom ...And Beyond! 01:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC) - User already voted above.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a necessary category for the current scheme. Recury 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Particularly useless, over-large in scope, necessarily incomplete, conflicts with policy. Hornplease 20:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The amount of information involved in this category would be endless. Doczilla 20:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful category in many cases, possible WP:POINT violation. --tjstrf 19:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Mathematicians by religion

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the intersection of two categories that are usually unrelated, and one of which is deeply private. There may be a discussion of the way religion has affected mathematics elsewhere, but a category or a list is no means of gathering information that in several cases is ambiguous or to be withheld - non-inclusion seems to be taken as a statement of exclusion. Bellbird 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete all subcats, obviously. --Pjacobi 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I take it you mean to include all the subcats as well, such that they all go, or all stay? If so, it would not trouble me to see them all go, I don't see any compelling need to categorise mathematicans by religion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You likely need to nominate Category:People by religion and occupation, so you know you can keep the pernicious fact some people express their religion in their occupation away from sensitive souls.--T. Anthony 16:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd suggest restricting the use of Category:People by religion to criteria already employed by its de: equivalent de:Kategorie:Person (Religion):

Personen, deren enzyklopädische Relevanz auf der Ausübung eines religiösen Amtes oder Berufs beruht
Personen, deren Biografie durch ihre Religion entscheidend beeinflusst wurde oder wird
Personen, die für ihre Religion Wichtigkeit hatten oder haben

Das Ziel dieser Kategorien ist es nicht, alle Personen einer bestimmten Glaubensrichtung zu erfassen.

Rough translation:

Persons, whose encyclopedic relevance stems from their religious profession
Persons, whose biography is significantly influenced by theor religion
Persons, important for their religion

The purpose of these categories is not to cover all adherents of a religion

Pjacobi 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, thats what Category:Christian mathematicians is trying to implement but it should be completely renamed if thats the case. It still feels like cruft. 01:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep at the moment, until each and every single last category and list by ethnicity and religion is nominated Mad Jack 16:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, do you really expect someone to nominate every ethnicity and religion category at once or is this some type of joke? If you WANT them to be deleted, you are majorly slowing down the process. ...And Beyond! 00:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked User:...And Beyond! and User:Boscovic as sockpuppets. Please ignore their contributions.-Runcorn 19:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: While the users may be sockpuppets, the logic of AfD and CfD is that it does not matter how many votes come down on each side, but what is argued. Given that, I think that instructing the closing admin to ignore what is said even by confirmed sockpuppets is deeply presumptuous. Please see policy at [1]. Hornplease 22:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not instructing the closing admin; I was making a request.--Runcorn 08:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As with all the previous nomniations, there is value in being able to identify and cross-reference people by various categories, including religion. The category is not Mathematics but Mathematicians. We view wikipedia as an encyclopedia with unparalled cross-referencing and indexing ability, and to throw out this kind of impersonal and public information is near criminal, and this is coming from someone with deletionist tendencies . Further, categorization is extremely important for indexing and research purposes. If someone is doing a study on the effects of Hindu or Jewish scientists on their fields, it is natural to search via category, as opposed to a massive text search over all 1M+ articles in wikipedia. -- Avi 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what on earth makes you think that it is valid to classify and "study" human beings in such a way? What will keep a category of, say, Jewish slave traders from arising, other than a (dishonest!) ad-hoc policy? See my comments on Jack O'Lantern's webpage. Bellbird 18:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's called sociology, Bellbird

. And yes, if we have slave traders who can be shown to be verified and reliably Jewish, then, if Category:Slave traders by religion exists, you can make an argument for Category:Jewish slave traders. However, I am certain that you have the intellectual honesty to realize that a category with at most four or five entrants may be considered a borderline category, and there is less reason for it. Categories like Category:Jewish mathematicians and Category:Jewish scientists, for example, have hundreds of entries. The comparison is flawed ab initio on both points, in my opinion. -- Avi 18:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And who told you that "Jew" is a valid sociological category? Or that sociology consists in raw list-making?

As for the lack of biographies on Jewish slave traders (or Jewish speculators, say) - that, I am afraid, is due in part to a lack of interest. I certainly shall not write such biographies myself. Let somebody else do as much - for the purpose of having the category deleted, I would hope. Bellbird 19:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even have a Category:Slave traders of any kind. We do have Category:Slaveholders. It includes the ethnic subsection Category:Arabian slaveholders. Interestingly in Brazil a small minority of slave owners were Jewish as the former slaves of Jewish people were a segment called the "Julo" in the Palmares (quilombo). I read this in a book on Maroon societies, but it's not meant as any kind of disparagement of Brazilian Jewish people. They were not overrepresented among slaveowners in Brazil and the vast majority of Brazilian slave owners were of course Catholic. The slaves of Jewish people did become noted among some Maroons, possibly because of rarity. Also Jewish slave owners had no urge to convert their slaves so maybe, maybe, they were given greater freedom to maintain African traditional religions.--T. Anthony 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I see that "Jewish spies" got deleted. How good! And how hypocritical! Bellbird 19:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make a list of lists of bad Jews that got deleted in the last year or so? Mind you, I am delighted they got deleted. I am not proposing they should be restored. Rather, shouldn't we simply make a list of names of deleted lists? Bellbird 19:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Michael 20:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories should be used for primary characteritics of a person, not as lousy database tool. WP is not database and should not provide database services, at least with current MediaWiki software. Pavel Vozenilek 21:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel, have you read the opening paragraphs to Wikipedia:Categorization and Help:Category? -- Avi 23:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many Jewish mathematicians, cite Jewishness as one of the inspirations in their studies.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. This category is not for those people, it is for anyone who happens to have a Jewish forebearer. Please make your decision so it reflects that. ...And Beyond! 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats more irrelevant are your annoying rants.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete - if only this wouldn't end in "no consensus" ...And Beyond! 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked User:...And Beyond! and User:Boscovic as sockpuppets. Please ignore their contributions.-Runcorn 19:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: While the users may be sockpuppets, the logic of AfD and CfD is that it does not matter how many votes come down on each side, but what is argued. Given that, I think that instructing the closing admin to ignore what is said even by confirmed sockpuppets is deeply presumptuous. Please see policy at [2]. Hornplease 22:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance, see Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. Encyclopedias do not need categories for the religion or ethnicity of every last human on Earth. There is ZERO Wikipedia:Notability to know the religious status or ethnicity of any important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that. IZAK 08:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Izak. Zora 10:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant classification. Osomec 13:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per very straightforward Wikipedia categorization policy. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't understand the claims of those who find it irrelevant; it is relevant.--Holdenhurst 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nom was apparently the result of a mis-communication between T. Anthony and Bellbird. - jc37 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user appears to be completely confused. Deletion of these categories has nothing to do with that. Please vote accordingly. ...And Beyond! 01:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once the confusion was resolved about what I intended Bellbird still disagreed with me. That said this person has every right to vote however they see fit and the stated reason may not necessarily be the only one.--T. Anthony 21:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well that makes two confused users, one above me, and the other above him.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename Category:Mathematicians influenced by their religion and adjust! Otherwise, big delete Boscovic 05:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer "Mathematicians notable for their religion", but I'm fine with a rename along those lines.--T. Anthony 05:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria can one define to show that one is "influenced by their religion"? Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer "notable for their religion" and not influenced by it. Still there were mathematicians whose religion influenced their mathematical work. The most obvious is that they tried to use math prove the existence of God or Gods or otherwise support their religion. There are several Muslims, Hindus, and Christians who did this. Another is that they used their respect as mathematicians to advance their religion. For example there were Jesuit missionaries in China who translated mathematical works in the hopes they could gain the respect needed to gain converts. Xu Guangqi's conversion by Matteo Ricci involves something like that.--T. Anthony 10:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jewish mathematicians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the reasons for removing all categories of mathematicians by religion, plus many more: see Talk:Grigori_Perelman,Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#How_is_this_classification_different_from_all_other_classifications?,

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Tagging_living_people_as_Jews, Category talk:Jewish_mathematicians Bellbird 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is value in being able to identify and cross-reference people by various categories, including religion. The category is not Jewish Mathematics but Mathematicians. According to beyond, why note gender, birthdays, and birthplace? That too does not affect the person. The answer is that we view wikipedia as an encyclopedia with unparalled cross-referencing and indexing ability, and to throw out this kind of impersonal and public information is near criminal, and this is coming from someone with deletionist tendencies . Further, categorization is extremely important for indexing and research purposes. If someone is doing a study on the effects of Hindu or Jewish scientists on their fields, it is natural to search via category, as opposed to a massive text search over all 1M+ articles in wikipedia. -- Avi 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting argument, but you should make it on the appropriate policy page. In particular, if there is an article on Jewish mathematics or Hindu mathematics, these names will emerge in the text. If there is no article, then it is not important enough, and we dont need to worry about your hypothetical researcher. Hornplease 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepEither we categorize mathemations by religion, or we don't. Singling out any particular religion for special treatment is inappropriate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See the above! I am proposing to remove all categorizations of mathematicians by religion. Bellbird 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I voted above in favor of removing them all. My view is they should all stay, or they should all go, either of those is acceptable. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The cross out of your initial keep vote has been removed, for now, as it was not done by you. If the cross-out met with your approval feel free to bring it back.--T. Anthony 00:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have to opportunity to vote "delete" now. All the mathematician categories by religion are up for deletion I believe. ...And Beyond! 00:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked User:...And Beyond! and User:Boscovic as sockpuppets. Please ignore their contributions.-Runcorn 19:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with you noting he's a sockpuppet, provided that's actually true, but some of what you are blocking out are simply comments he made to me which I did not find offensive or irrelevant. That said he "crossed the line" by marking out one "Keep" vote, at the Christian one, by ProveIt. I think this was done accurately, but I feel like people should cross out their own keep votes if that is what they wish to do.--T. Anthony 00:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: While the users may be sockpuppets, the logic of AfD and CfD is that it does not matter how many votes come down on each side, but what is argued. Given that, I think that instructing the closing admin to ignore what is said even by confirmed sockpuppets is deeply presumptuous. Please see policy at [3]. Hornplease 22:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not instructing the closing admin.--Runcorn 08:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Comment That's not correct: Category:Kerala school is clearly a religious category but is not up for deletion.--20.138.246.89 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Delete but only on the condition that all the others go as well. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meh, you know what. The day when one of these users nominated every single list and category by ethnicity for deletion, I will vote Delete. (Yes, that means Italian-American musicians, too). Not before. Enough with this singling out. Mad Jack 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay tuned. We can and will do that. This CfD doesn't want to single someone out (and not only category by ethnicity, also category by religion). --Pjacobi 16:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the good things about deleting these categories and lists (all of them), is that I don't have to spend time sourcing them. And, it makes it harder for the "Jewishness deleters" to find these names and delete mentions of their Jewishness. However, when it comes to these nominations, for some strange reasons the nominators always go for the Jews first (if I nominated Greek, Greek-American, British-Greek (yes, it exists) and Greek Orthodox categories and lists for deletion, I would probably be blocked). So, I am voting a strong "Keep" on any of these until every single last category and list is nominated, at which point I will vote "Delete", although that will be fairly pointless, because, the majority of people would vote "Keep". But, as for my "Delete" vote that day - you have that as a promise if you're ever up to it Mad Jack 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get into childish accusations of anti-semitism. Anyone in the right mind can see that it just so happens Jewish categories are among the most ridiculous and overhyped on wikipedia, that's the "strange reason" why a lot get nominated. They're also the hardest to delete because everyone fears appearing anti-semitic if they vote "Delete." Yet, other categories are deleted without much problem. I wonder what "strange reason" is behind that. ...And Beyond! 00:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not anti-Semitism at all that I'm talking about. Just paranoia from these people, some of whom are Jewish and some who are not, that these categories are somehow harmful to the people listed or can place them in danger or label them somehow, etc. That kind of stuff. That's why the user who nominated this nominated this in the first place. My biff is that no one ever singles out all lists of, say, Greeks, Greek-Americans and Greek Orthodox people in the same manner. Mad Jack 02:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying Catholic lists and categories have been up for deletion many times. Maybe not as many as Jewish, but that's because when Catholic categories are up for deletion the deleters tend to win. As for Eastern Orthodoxy Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians doesn't have many subdivisions to delete. Here's the subcats for it that relate to Greek Orthodoxy: Category:Greek orthodox philosophers and Category:Greek Orthodox clerics. For Russian Orthodoxy I find: Category:Russian Orthodox Christians, Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Moscow, Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Kiev and all Rus' andCategory:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Pretty much every Eastern Orthodox category I find is for clergy, philosophers, patriarchs, and theologians.--T. Anthony 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu mathematicians was up for delete before this.--T. Anthony 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_31#Category:British_Anglicans --Pjacobi 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to tell me? That once a year a non-Jewish category gets nominated? Yes, I know that. Mad Jack 16:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not once a year. A variety of Christian and Catholic lists I worked on were deleted. As were Categories. In fact the massive deletion of any reference to anyone's religion ever was part of why I once left. (I mean the article on Augustin Louis Cauchy I don't even think mentioned he was a Catholic royalist until I added it. That omission caused a person at the talk page to ask why he was against oaths to the Republic.)--T. Anthony 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MadJack, if you had so much as bothered to read the discussion on Hindu Mathematicians linked above, you would realise that this cat was being used as a precedent. It should be clear that this means that this one is coming to CfD, without having to assume anything about the motives of the nominators. Further, I note that you have not marshalled any arguments to keep this other than discrimnation. If all of them are being deleted, then that is an insufficient argument. Hornplease 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, categorizing by ethnicity and by religion is bad™. But I assume this must be addressed by a more ambitious attack, including better formulated rationale for deletion, comparison with other encyclopedias, and of course listing all affected categories. --Pjacobi 16:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This debate is getting tiring. If any particular subject is of interest to many other people, if the info is correct and does not violate any kind of copyright or privacy restriction, it should be in Wikipedia. All this moral talk is of no relevance. There is a reason why we don't have categories like blond Australian zookepers - noone cares. If some people care, let them create such category. Just make sure they use reliable sources. Mhym 19:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Caring" is not the policy here. Fortunately we have policy, and that is if (a) someone has self-identified as part of a religion and (b) that religion has influenced their notability then the cat is justified. In this case, you have to make an argument that religion can influence notability, and you havent done it. Sorry! Hornplease 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if a bunch of wiki friends and I wanted to make Category:Green-eyed Lesbians we should because we find it interesting? Sorry, I can't follow your argument. ...And Beyond! 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree here oddly enough. "Interesting" is a vague term and not enough of a justification. A category of people who had sex with Bill Clinton could be interesting, and there would be enough names for a category, but that doesn't mean it'd be appropriate. I think this is or can be useful and appropriate, but interesting isn't enough in itself.--T. Anthony 02:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well do people care about green eyed lesbos? no. Cat Christian mathematicians has quite a large number of articles, meaning its somewhat popular.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly if someone were to create green eyes lesbos, someone does. And the people in Christian mathematicians could have all been added by one user. ...And Beyond!

I think it is unlikely anyone is notable for being a green-eyed lesbian or that anyone's notability is equally because of their lesbianism and eye-color. Category:Tall lesbians could be more analogous as there are women who are as noted for being tall as they are for being lesbians. (Judy Gold is all that's coming to my mind at present, but there's likely others)--T. Anthony 05:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, absolutely NO legitimate reason to delete it. Jews have made great contributions to math and science, as shown with the amount of Jewish Nobel Prize recipients. Great category. --Shamir1 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that these categories do not take piety or religious affiliation into consideration, how is this different from saying "Whites have made great contributions to science, as measured by Nobel Prizes"? Could we create a category of "Black Criminals"? After all, this moral talk is just nonsense, isn't it? Bellbird 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jewish is also an ethnicity. We do have Category:African American scientists--T. Anthony 02:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally - what great contributions have you made? Bellbird 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bellbird has a point. Wikipedia is not here to instill ethnic pride via its articles. Should we make a Category:White males category because they've made "great contributions to math and science"? Or as Bellbird mentioned a Category:Black criminals because they're overrepresented in the US prison system? Please. ...And Beyond! 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Bellbird has no point. Hes merely violating WP:NPA and trolling.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

****OK. Clearly you're taking this out of hand, as can be seen by your own personal attack on my comments. ...And Beyond! 02:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I find this category very useful.--Newport 21:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very useful to what? Bellbird 14:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not datrabase and categories not search tool. Pavel Vozenilek 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel, have you read the opening paragraphs to Wikipedia:Categorization and Help:Category? -- Avi 23:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-referenced cat. 143 is a very good number.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because this category does not use the same standard as Category:Christian mathematicians. It's much more relaxed in its inclusion. ...And Beyond! 03:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete - please lets get rid of all these unmanageable and debate-inducing mathematician by religion categories once and for all. ...And Beyond! 00:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it was only debate-inducing because anti-Hindu users attacked me by putting certain cats up first.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the talk page of Jewish mathematicians. This category causes a lot of problems. ...And Beyond! 00:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish mathematicians has actual controversy. Hindu mathematicians is merely used by people to denigrate the religion, not because of any lapses in research which may or may not happen in this cat. I dont discriminate so all cats of mathematicians should be kept.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm baffled by the suggestion that this category causes any problems. How can it?--Brownlee 07:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you vote against deleting the "Jewish spies" category, which was deleted (fortunately!) some time ago? Bellbird 14:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance, see Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. Encyclopedias do not need categories for the religion or ethnicity of every last human on Earth. There is ZERO Wikipedia:Notability to know the religious status or ethnicity of any important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that. IZAK 08:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Religion is irrelevant to mathematics. Osomec 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per very straightforward Wikipedia categorization policy. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you vote against deleting the "Jewish spies" category, which was deleted (fortunately!) some time ago? What about the lists of "leading Jewish bolsheviks" or "Jewish members of the Soviet secret police" beloved of antisemites (see Talk:Jew)? Mind you, these lists are large and by true and verifiable. If there is a problem, it resides in the pratice of categorisation itself.

(By the way, all of this talk about sociology is silly. New Yorkers are, large and by, not as portrayed by Woody Allen; generally, only the generation of immigrants has clear and strong common traits. When it comes to anybody anywhere else, the label - as an ethnic label - can be utterly misleading. In general, it is a label that is being adjudicated by descent - any descent. Bellbird 14:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Keep pr several of the reasons above.--Holdenhurst 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep Jewish education stresses mathematics, so if they're practicing Jews, it's a big deal! Boscovic 00:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC) ~~:::Delete I changed my vote. If this is a category of "Jewish mathematics" which it appears to be, I am 100% agains't it! Sorry, Nazi ideology is long dead. Boscovic 05:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

You should know that this category isn't AT ALL about practicing Jews. It's about anybody who happens to have a Jewish ancestor. Please reconsider. ...And Beyond! 01:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nom was apparently the result of a mis-communication between T. Anthony and Bellbird. - jc37 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was Category:Christian mathematicians which was a mis-communication, and because T. Anthony didn't bother specifying what a "Christian mathematician" was. ...And Beyond! 01:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. I was silly enough to think that it was just presumed we should obey the rules governing lists and categories. (That the category only be of those whose X+Y status is important to said person's notability) I didn't consider that you have to actually explain those rules on the category's page, or give readers the gist of them, each and every time you make a category. When I created Category:Draughts players, a long time back, the note I put was "People who are or were players of various forms of draughts, sometimes called checkers. At present the category is underpopulated so does not separate into subcategories like Category:International draughts players or Category:Pool checkers players." I see now this is insufficiently clear and I should have said "People who are or were notable as players of various forms of draughts." After all people who just played checkers for fun, like Harry Houdini, could've ended up there. That didn't happen, ever, but still best to be careful. (Too snarky?)--T. Anthony 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(That said I was actually dissatisfied with the original note on rereading it so changed it to something like the above)--T. Anthony 01:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it may seem "obvious" that Christian Mathematicians would just mean mathematicians whos Christianity is important to the said personality notability, but then how come Category:Jewish mathematicians doesn't follow that? Even people who were Christian converts are on the list, so clearly it has nothing to do with the religion itself. People will argue "because Jewish is an ethnicity too" but the category doesn't follow any set rules for that either. But most importantly, not everything is worth having a category over on this encyclopedia; that's why I'm still maintaing the delete vote on Christian mathematicians. ...And Beyond! 02:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category should be limited to those whose cultural, ethnic, or religious identity is valid to their public life or notability. That this is possibly not being adequately done does not mean getting it done is impossible or unworth the effort.--T. Anthony 06:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article/category needs to be policed does not warrant deletion.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy. (a) if someone self-identifies, certifiably, as part of a religion and (b) that self-identification is central to their claims to notability, then the cat is justified, as per policy laid down following much discussion. I fail to see it justified here. Thus all arguments to keep that are variations of (a) this is discriminatory and (b) some who may have followed this religion has made specific contributions to mathematics must be disregarded by the closing admin. Hornplease 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a matter of misuse than anything essential. Show that someone can't be equally notable for being Jewish and a mathematician. To give you examples of mathematicians whose Jewish status is important to their significance I cite: Paul Epstein, Adolf Abraham Halevi Fraenkel, Gersonides, Felix Hausdorff, Adolf Lindenbaum, and Stanisław Saks. That's only six names, but that's a decent start for a category. Can you support the idea that their notability is unrelated to being Jewish?--T. Anthony 10:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The above vote has not cited any actual policy. The above vote merely shows a POV WP:OR dream-voting and begging.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I congratulate you on your mastery of the colloquial, which does, however, imply that I am quite unsure what exactly you are being insulting about. The bit I understand, however, indicates that I have not quoted policy. I have done so elsewhere on these pages, in which (as you perhaps know, having voted on them) several similar cats are up for deletion. Sometimes one gets tired of typing. Though given that you've taken to replying to everything I've ever said, I suppose that doesnt apply to you. Hornplease 14:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did I remember to vote keep on this? I thought I voted, but I'm not seeing it. (I didn't vote on the Christian one as I created it and feel I should not vote.)--T. Anthony 11:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Short story collections by Stephen King

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Short story collections by Stephen King to Category:Stephen King short story collections

Rename, Corrected to comply with standard category names. Nick Curtis 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:WP System

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 18:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, This tree of categories is unused and looks awfully complicated. --ais523 11:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral given explanation. I was hoping it would be something like that. --ais523 08:53, 13 September 2006 (U T C)
Keep pending explanation. I left a message with the creator - John Reid (talk • contribs) - about this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete although I'm willing to wait. This looks like some sort of Library of Congress Classification system for grouping cats. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article classification system in utero. It's intended to be integrated with Watchlist and Search but of course this will require developer work. You see how far I got; then I had an extensive series of chats with some of the dev team on IRC. The reaction was very good but this system may be implemented at a much deeper level and involve a radical engine enhancement, which of course will not happen any time soon. So I put it aside pending more dev input.

For my money, you can delete it if you like -- but why? It's not as though it incurs any significant overhead just sitting there. It's entirely possible that it will indeed prove useful in future when the dev ball gets rolling. I hope it's not "awfully" complicated; you already see the full depth -- that is, 2 levels, no more. This is not intended to be a specific categorization scheme like LC or Dewey Decimal, where every book has its own number in order. Rather, it's just 100 broad categories of article topics. It could not be much simpler and still have any utility.

I did put a fairish bit of work into this and whether it is eventually implemented in its current form or deeper within the engine, I'd not like to see the work done so far wasted. I'd say, move it into my userspace if it offends your eyes but since it's made of Category pages, I don't think that will work well. For now, I'd suggest you just leave it until somebody can show it's doing harm. Either way, no big deal -- but please don't lose the content. John Reid 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It looks like it could be an interesting system. I'd like to see where it goes.--Mike Selinker 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - I'd like to see where this goes before we delete it. --Cswrye 02:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's overdoing it. Delete, make a feature request to the Devs. >Radiant< 16:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a work in progress. If nothing has happened in 6 months, relist. - jc37 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Penguin Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete G4: Recreation of deleted material. Avi 18:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought for sure that this was deleted in the past, but maybe I was wrong. I'm proposing a deletion, but if too many people disagree with that, I would be willing to accept a rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in penguins as a compromise. —Cswrye 05:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And while we're on the subject, let's consider category:Wikipedians/Ninjas for deletion or renaming to category:Ninja Wikipedians. I'm fine with either, but not it staying the way it is.--Mike Selinker 07:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire from orbit. See recent discussions for Category:Delphine wikipedians (cfd aug 8) and its deletion endorsement on DRV. (aug 28) Syrthiss 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Penguin users was deleted last month. This can be speedy deleted as recreated content. - EurekaLott 18:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Christian mathematicians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Nearly one third of the world is "Christian" in some way, rendering this category completely ridiculous. Furthermore there's nothing that should be special about a mathematician being of the Christian religion any more than a mathematician being anything more specific, like a Mormon or Baptist. Are we going to make categories for mathematicians with blue eyes next? This does not appear to be category of Christian followers who are still mathematicians and even if it was its silly because nothing prevents a mathematician from BEING a Christian, so its not something to note....And Beyond! 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked User:...And Beyond! and User:Boscovic as sockpuppets. Please ignore their contributions.-Runcorn 19:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absurd. Pavel Vozenilek 11:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brammen 11:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if and only if Category:Jewish Mathematicians is deleted; Keep if the latter is kept. It wasn't my idea to create this category, by the way; it may be only coincidence that it has been created at the same time that there is a discussion in Category talk:Jewish Mathematicians going on. If this category were to be kept like the category Category:Jewish Mathematicians is kept, it would contain every single baptised mathematician (including some living members of Category:Jewish Mathematicians!). Um. (Of course, I would personally prefer this category to be deleted - but, if it was created to make a point, it is a good one.) Bellbird 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is value in being able to identify and cross-reference people by various categories, including religion. The category is not Christian Mathematics but Mathematicians. According to beyond, why note gender, birthdays, and birthplace? That too does not affect the person. The answer is that we view wikipedia as an encyclopedia with unparalled cross-referencing and indexing ability, and to throw out this kind of impersonal and public information is near criminal, and this is comping from someone with deletionist tendencies . -- Avi 15:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand what I said a lot. According to "me", why not gender, birthdays, and birthplace?? Well, I never posed those questions. We can put whatever is somewhat relevant to their lives in their corresponding articles but a category? Are we really going to be making Category:Mathematicians born in New Jersey, Category:Mathematicians born in 1878? I suggest you change this to a "comment" rather than a vote because you don't appear to be arguing FOR this specific category. ...And Beyond! 15:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On year are you aware of Category:Mathematicians by century?

Why not New Jersey? We already have Category:People from New Jersey by occupation--T. Anthony 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematicians isn't one of them for a reason. Then we can argue for breaking it down into city and region Category:Mathematicians born in Dallas, Category:Mathematicians from the Pacific rim ...And Beyond! 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No we wouldn't that's silly. We have Category:New Jersey actors, but we're nowhere near having Category:Newark actors. Again what's your reason not New Jersey? You are aware of say Princeton University and other places mathematicians live/lived?--T. Anthony 16:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I said "born" but it was really just an example. We can't make thousands of categories for every state or province a mathematician is born in. ...And Beyond! 16:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, categorization is extremely important for indexing and research purposes. If someone is doing a study on the effects of Hindu or Christian scientists on their fields, it is natural to search via category, as opposed to a massive text search over all 1M+ articles in wikipedia. -- Avi 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People could also be doing a study on how left-handedness correlates with mathematical aptitude. We can't help everyone with their Psychology homework. ...And Beyond! 15:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this because I think it's potentially useful as history as there was a time where Christian institutions were where people learned math or where mathematicians were advocates on religious matters. Also if the others survive I hoped this could. If you want further justification for it that's easy. Christianity and mathematical science (McTutor), Christianity and Mathematics (Middlesex University), Christianity and Math (Trinity Christian), etc. If you'll actually check the names I put in this category you'll find almost all of them were monks, nuns, priests, ministers, and or people who learned math in Christian institutions. If judging by what nationality they learned in is valid why not this? (Besides the everpresent "This is Wikipedia where it is our duty to ignore everyone's religion at every point.") Added to that we have Category:Christian politicians, Category:Lutheran politicians, Category:Mormon composers, and of course Category:People by religion and occupation. That said I'm not voting.--T. Anthony 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly one other reason is that some of these people did not seem to belong in Category:Christians in science as their math work only seemed vaguely related to science. If this category dies I hope someone will put them in the main cat for me.(And if that's deleted eek) I've also tried to remove a few names that were marginal.--T. Anthony 15:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We shouldn't make categories for every single issue concerning a group of people. I don't see why being a priest and a mathematician or learning mathematics at a Christian institution is so relevant we must categorize it. Maybe its semi-relevant information in the article, but lets not push the boundaires. With that precedent, Category:Lawyer mathematicians, Category:Doctor mathematicians could work for people who studied Law or Medicine before mathematics. ...And Beyond! 15:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't indiscriminate. I'm not mixing professions or anything like that. I'm going by what can be a defining characteristic of a person as mathematician is a person. I ask you look at who I actually put in the category. Look at the noted I added to it. I gave support why the subject is of academic and historical interest. Many of your objections could apply to almost anything in Category:People by religion and occupation, the various occupation segments of Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people, Category:Women by occupation, or Category:Nationalities by occupation--T. Anthony 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So would you be for something like Category:Lesbian, gay, bisxual, or transgender mathematicians? That's a defining characteristic of a person and, like you said, it's no more indiscriminate than what we have here. ...And Beyond! 16:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure except I think we already have something like that with Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists and engineers.--T. Anthony 16:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap! Categories on en.wikipedia are really out of control. Next stop: Category:Left handed mathematicans and Categorie:Brunette fictional deities. Anyone has some spare servers to fork Wikipedia now? --Pjacobi 17:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Either we categorize mathemations by religion, or we don't. Singling out any particular religion for special treatment is inappropriate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, vote for this category at the moment. If this one goes, so will others like it. "Don't single out a category" is not a valid argument. ...And Beyond! 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete on the umbrella nomination. My view is that they should all stay, or they should all go. I could live with either of those. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but only on the condition that all the others go as well. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit uncertain is your position on this vote keep or delete? IOW did the crossing out...And Beyond! did represent your view?--T. Anthony 00:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meh, you know what. The day when one of these users nominated every single list and category by ethnicity for deletion, I will vote Delete. (Yes, that means Italian-American musicians, too). Not before. Enough with this singling out. Mad Jack 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize nobody in Wikipedia History will ever do what you're requesting. On wikipedia, we must single out certain categories to use as precedents. Oh and "Christian" is not an ethnicity. ...And Beyond! 16:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I meant by ethnicity and religion. However, certainly we may not have an "Italian American politicians" category but not an "Irish-American politicians category". We either have all or we don't have any. Mad Jack 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- No sane wikipedia user will ever nominate all these lists at once because it will inevitably get a "speedy keep." So you're basically commenting that you're going to vote "keep" no matter what, correct? ...And Beyond! 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I am honestly saying that I would vote delete once all are nominated, and I'm not the only one saying that. It's grossly unfair to have one category but not the other (ala the Irish - Italian - American politicians as I mentioned above). I don't see why it's such a crazy idea to nominate all of them. Mad Jack 02:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, you and I might not think its that crazy, but I guarantee many, many users will think it outrageous. I don't see WHY it's such an issue to nominate each individually. I also don't see what Italian-American politicians has to do with the Occupations by Religion categories. ...And Beyond! 03:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think I have to explain that "Jewish" is a lot more than a religion, and that, if we have Italian-American politicians, we obviously must have Jewish-American politicians. (i.e. regarding "Jewish mathematicians") Mad Jack 03:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_12#Mathematicians_by_religion. --Pjacobi 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Strong Keep - per Provelt and some mathematicians are quite inspired by their religious beliefs. This should possibly be more of an umbrella cat for different denominations who may not be cozy with one another.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed per discussion with and beyond.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does no one look at the category before making a "delete" or "keep" comment? This is not a category for mathematicians who were inspired by their religios beliefs so that is totally irrelevant. ...And Beyond! 00:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get dragged back into this, but I created this category. I know what I created for and you're wrong. This is not a category for mathematicians who happen to be Christian. This is a category for people whose significance is both math and Christianity. Several of the names are beatified or canonized in their respective faith. Would you just actually look at the category I created and the names I put it in?--T. Anthony 01:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for those who are known for their Christianity and mathematics. In certain cases it involves those who tried to combine the too, to take one example Pavel Florensky. See Category:Mathematics and culture for other elements of the humanities that have been related to math and Category:Pythagoreans for how math can be almost indistinguishable from philosophy or religion in certain historical periods.

. And Beyond you are wrong. The scope does cite it. I 'do read the article.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T. Anthony added the description only AFTER it was nominated for deletion:

Because I assumed it was obvious that this would be for people who are relevant as Christians and mathematicians so at first I saw no need to put that in. The names being Jesuits, monks, saints, and professors of theology seemed to make it clear. However whenever religion comes up you have to spell things out in minute detail or the hysterics will comes out.--T. Anthony 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That said if this is deleted would it be acceptable for me to put these names back in Category:Christians in science? Or is that next to be deleted?--T. Anthony 16:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (last) 16:12, 12 September 2006 T. Anthony (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 15:54, 12 September 2006 T. Anthony (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 03:22, 12 September 2006 ...And Beyond! (Talk | contribs)

If anything, he should have named the category something more relevant. "Christian mathematicians" gives off the same impression as "Jewish mathematicians' that being, mathematicians who are that religion. Regardless, it's listcruft. ...And Beyond! 03:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with renaming it Category:Christians in the history of mathematics, I just didn't see this name as a problem. It seemed concise and clear.--T. Anthony 19:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to rename it, then rename it something much more clear than that, maybe Mathematicians inspired by Christianity or something like that. Nonetheless, it still feels like the category is utterly pointless and burdensome. Simply because its your hobby to category people by their religious influence doesn't make it a valid category to have on an encyclopedia. I'm not suggesting its a bad category just not one relevant enough in sufficient areas to justify a category, as one user noted below. ...And Beyond! 01:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My hobby? Since when? True I have an interest in religion and the religion of historical figures, but as far as I can recall the only religion categories I created before this were Category:Shakers, Category:Swedenborgians, and maybe Category:Critics of Islam. I usually prefer lists as you can explain inclusion better, but in this case I've already done two or three lists involving Christians and science.(Depending on how you view Quakers in science, I intended the non-list portion to become larger than the list) Also "inspired" would be too subjective and possibly POV, or just confusing. An atheist mathematician could be inspired by Christianity, as in inspired by certain aspects of it or inspired by it to be an activist against it.--T. Anthony 02:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even create Category:Mathematicians by religion, User:Avraham did. Likewise Category:Scientists by religion was created by User:Karol Langner--T. Anthony 02:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance, see Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. Encyclopedias do not need categories for the religion or ethnicity of every last human on Earth. There is ZERO Wikipedia:Notability to know the religious status or ethnicity of any important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that. IZAK 08:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant in sufficient cases to justify a category. Osomec 13:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is confined to practising Christians, it is a significant and worthwhile category.--Poetlister 17:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AGF, but I can't see any sensible reason for wanting this deleted.--Holdenhurst 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Then you haven't read any of the arguments on here. ...And Beyond! 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please comment on the topic, not on the editor. --BostonMA 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is making unfit WP:AGF-vio accusations. ...And Beyond! 01:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously not a violation of AGF to disagree with someone's argument; to accuse someone of violating AGF in this way might even be construed by some as violating WP:NPA.--Holdenhurst 11:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. However, it is puzzling that people would make that kind of statement at the end of a long discussion rehearsing arguments on both sides. I think we can, even with the best of faith, assume that that editor did not in fact read the arguments, or else he or she would have had something to say.

*Strong Keep People like Pavel Florensky are definitely noteworthy Christians/Mathematicians! Boscovic 00:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~However Delete if this is a category for just any mathematician of the Christian religion. Boscovic 05:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

It being "just any mathematician of the Christian religion" is not what I ever intended. Even before the delete vote I was only looking for mathematicians whose Christianity or religious work was notable enough to be in their articles. At present almost every name is of people notable for their Christianity, in several cases they are more known for their Christianity than their math, and if you find a name that doesn't fit that ideal I say remove it.--T. Anthony 05:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nom was apparently the result of a mis-communication between T. Anthony and Bellbird. - jc37 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why shouldn't this category exist?--Londoneye 11:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion on WP:AGF and rhetorical questions above.Hornplease

Delete per arguments made above by me in Jewish mathematicians and Hindu mathematicians. Hornplease 20:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sock nomination. --tjstrf 19:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Organized crime people

and

Category:Organized criminals

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to category:People convicted of organized crime --Kbdank71 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

( A ) Merge both to Category:People in organized crime, or, per jc37 below, Category:People convicted of organized crime, leaving redirects; or

( B ) Merge Category:Organized crime people to Category:Organized criminals, leaving redirect.

Either as nom. David Kernow 03:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to category:People involved in organized crime or category:People convicted of organized crime. "in" needs to be clarified. - jc37 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed; have included latter in A. Thanks, David Kernow 11:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Books by Dito Montiel

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author (Dito Montiel) with a single book (by Amazon), though filmed. I cannot judge whether the book (A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints) and the film (A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (film)) are notable but the category should be deleted. Pavel Vozenilek 01:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category. There's not enough material here to call it a category. Doczilla 20:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Theology

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was relisted here, as Category:Religious philosophy and doctrine wasn't tagged for reverse merge --Kbdank71 18:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Category:Religious philosophy and doctrine. I don't care which is used as the final title, but I really don't see a useful difference between the two topics. -- Beland 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no difference, reverse merge as Category:Theology more succinct...? David Kernow 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If either one is acceptable, I think that I would prefer a reverse merge into Category:Theology. I think it's a more widely used term, and like David Kernow said, it's more succinct. —Cswrye 05:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge into category:Theology. Theology is a standard subject area and it is no more necessary to expand the term in this way than it would to rename category:history to Category:Things that happened in the past. Brammen 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to Category:Theology per David Kernow. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a difference between religious philosophy and theology. IN looking at the categories, one is very clearly philosophy (read its introduction). category:Theology would seem to be a mix of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theological topics for discussion. I think maybe we should leave this one alone. - jc37 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. Rename if someone can come up with an appropriate name. - jc37 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both categories are fine where they are. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (in response to previous comments). Please consider how someone would decide whether something like "Life after death" should be in Theology, Religious philosophy and doctrine, or both. There are a large number of subcategories which contain material applicable to both, and so if they were properly sorted, there would be quite a large overlap. -- Beland 21:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge per David Kernow. I was under the impression that religious philosophy and doctrine was theology, and that any other religious philosophy fell under Category:Philosophy of religion or Category:Metaphysics - Sam 18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Religious philosophy is different than Theology. (In the university system, they fall under different headings, Philosophy and Theology.) The explicit difference here is the "theo-" in theology. The theology category is about topics for discussions about the monotheistic abrahamic religions, such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. The religious philosophy discusses the concepts of religion, philosophical thoughts about existence from a religious standpoint, as well as topics outside the monotheistic discussions. There is going to be an overlap, obviously, but that's embraced, rather than frowned upon in the category system. While I don't think a rename for either categories is necessarily in order, I do think that the Theology category's introduction should more clearly explain this, to clarify for those not familiar with the topics of study. (For further info, check out the Theology article.) - jc37 14:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

UMass basketball

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Massachusetts Amherst is another school that has separate nicknames for its men's and women's athletic programs. See this discussion of its "Minutemen" nickname from the school's official athletics site. If you search the same site for UMass women's athletic programs, you'll find that they consistently call women's teams and athletes "Minutewomen". By the way, "UMass" is a widely used abbreviation for the school, and the school itself uses it for branding purposes, especially in athletics. — Dale Arnett 00:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename.--Mike Selinker 03:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this indulgence. Doczilla 20:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Categorizing athletes like Dr. J and Rick Pitino is indulgence? That's a baffling position, Doc. Who do you want us to categorize if not famous people?--Mike Selinker 05:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- These people have articles, so it only makes sense to group them with similar articles. There's certainly no reason to delete UMass's cats and leave all of its peers in Category:College men's basketball coaches and Category:College men's basketball players. Rename, probably, or keep, but do not delete. ×Meegs 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.