The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: These aren't actual episodes, but a list of the films that were reviewed by The Cinema Snob. This isn't worthy of a category.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 21:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as clear misuse of the category system. Articles such as Last Ounce of Courage don't mention this at all. DexDor(talk) 05:32, 3 May 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:HC 05 Banská Bystrica players
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, but I will use the
ASCII character ' rather than ’ and move the page likewise – external sites do not use the curly quote character. The new name is therefore
Category:HC '05 Banská Bystrica players. –
FayenaticLondon 13:22, 2 July 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:Films by black directors
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 to
Category:Films by African-American directors; I had a quick look through the contents and all the directors seem to be African-Americans, so I will not list this for manual review as needing purging. –
FayenaticLondon 13:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I went ahead and added several directors to this category and cleaned it up under the impression it was just a poorly kept category. Feel free to roll those edits back (*in the event that the category is deleted).
Sock(tock talk) 17:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC) [*edited 17:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)]reply
Delete, without prejudice against creation of a new
Category:Films by African-American directors for the US directors. African-American cinema is a notable and sourceable thing, so there is encyclopedic relevance to a category for the directors who make it. The problem here isn't so much that it's an inherently invalid grouping, as that using "black" as the name for it doesn't limit it to the relevant context: "black" would also include Black Canadian directors like Charles Officer and Sudz Sutherland, Black British film directors like Noel Clarke and Steve McQueen, African and Caribbean film directors, and other people who aren't making films in an American cultural context. The director's skin colour isn't a defining characteristic of the film per se, such that non-Americans like Officer and Sutherland and Clarke and McQueen and Obi Emelonye and Raoul Peck and Usama Mukwaya would belong alongside Americans like Ava Duvernay and Spike Lee and Marlon Riggs and Denzel Washington — African-American directors belong together in a category, certainly, but skin colour itself isn't an axis on which non-American blacks would belong alongside American ones in the same category.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Irrespective of whether "the director's skin color isn't a defining characteristic of the film" or whether this "by race category" is "inappropriate," the fact remains that films by black directors is a category used in the scholarly film literature. This can be seen easily via a search. Here are some examples:
[1],
[2],
[3], or take a look at
this GScholar search. Since plenty of scholars actually think that "the director's skin color" is in fact "a definining characteristic of the film," that seems to me to say that this is, contra
Bearcat, an inherently VALID grouping, and hence3 the category should be kept.
192.160.216.52 (
talk) 15:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Operating in an African-American cultural context links Black American directors with each other in a defining way, absolutely. But simply having the same skin colour does not link an African-American director with a Ugandan or Kenyan or South African director, whose cultural context is not African-American, in a defining way. Whatever you think you were arguing against, it's not what I said, and I'm not responsible for taking ownership of your strawman arguments.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I understand your argument. Your argument is that "films by black directors" doesn't make sense to you personally as a valid category. Any number of scholars seem to disagree with you, though, and I imagine we ought to give their views more weight than yours. As you would have seen had you bothered to investigate the matter, not all of them are talking about Americans, either.
192.160.216.52 (
talk) 17:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I did investigate the sources, and all of them are addressing a specifically African-American context, while none of them are about a grouping that contextlessly lumps Ava Duvernay and Tyler Perry and Barry Jenkins and Spike Lee in with British or African or other non-USian directors on the basis of skin colour alone. I'll thank you not to speak to me as though I were an idiot again — even back in your logged-in user days, you had a habit of going out of your way to criticize me on the grounds that you were purportedly smarter than me about how Wikipedia works, but you rarely if ever had a credible claim to actually being right.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)reply
A source which fails to group Black British directors with Black American directors across national boundaries is not solid proof of your point. What it reaffirms is that the defining characteristic is at the point of intersection between skin colour and nationality, not at skin colour alone without regard to what country or continent the person actually lives and works in — which means it's proof of my point.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename and purge as per Marcocapelle, in accord with the arguments of Bearcat. The first three sources cited by the IP editor above are all quite explicitly dealung with the African-American film experie3nce, which is a thing in itself, separate from other film cultures elsewhere. The fourth link goes to a search, the first itme of which has as its opening the following; A new cinema of the Caribbean is emerging, joining the company of the other “Third Cinemas.” It is related to, but different from, the vibrant film and other forms of visual representation of the Afro-Caribbean (and Asian) “blacks” of the diasporas of the West - the new post-colonial subjects. All these cultural practices and forms of representation have the black subject at their center, putting the issue of cultural identity in question.. This seems to me to support Bearcat's view that such a category is only defining within a given nationality or culture.
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename for now. However I want people to make sure this is applied in a cultural relevant way. That means if there is a director who successfully obscured having African ancestry during his career, his works should not be included. Nor should we include a Dominican-American who was clearly of at least some African-descent but always culturally identified as Latino and not African-American. It needs to be applied in a way that it is following the lines of ethnicity not race. Because if we classified by race
George Zimmerman would be in the African-American category, because he is of definable African descent.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:01, 23 May 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:Playboy Playmate twins
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic.
TM 14:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - per nominator's rational. Not defining.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 15:51, 2 May 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:Twin sportspeople from England
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:double merge. –
FayenaticLondon 13:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection of genetics, occupation and nationality.
TM 14:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Support although Twin Sportspeople is quite a large category, I feel a much better way to diffuse that (if needed) would be by sport rather than nationality. I feel
Angela Tooby has more connection with
Me'Lisa Barber (another track athlete) than she does with
Dean Holdsworth (a footballer).
SFB 00:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete all being a twin is mainly just a trivial and not a defining detail about someone.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:02, 23 May 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.
Words and phrases introduced prior to 1965
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Lots of
WP:SMALLCATs with no more than 2 articles each. The rest (1965-present) should be placed into decade categories. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 04:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Support not enough for such small categories. We also need to make sure this is limited to articles that subject matter really let us so categorize them. If the article is on a thing, when it was given its current English name may not be defining. At the same time I wonder if some of these phrases we may be focusing on minor, non-impactful usages in not notice publications and so I am not sure when a word or phrase was introduced is as straighforward as this category scheme suggests.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Good question. But probably to be left for another nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge all to the decade categories identified by
Dimadick. A few of the early ones already have phrases, but these may need to be renamed to
Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 1800s, etc. The mischief here is splitting what are not over large decade categories into years. In many cases this will enlarge a small category to have at least 5 members.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Support Words and phrases per decade is a better structure than per year, and better than words coined per decade.
MartinPoulter (
talk) 12:57, 23 May 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:The Demonata characters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Too few articles. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 04:04, 2 May 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:Views on homosexuality
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. As it currently contains two articles and a redirect all named "[X]'s views on homosexuality", I will merge them into
Category:Same-sex sexuality; whether they should stay there can be discussed elsewhere. –
FayenaticLondon 22:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is very small, and seems unlikely to grow. The number of valid articles on the views of particular individuals on Homosexuality will surely never be large. However, this category is an attractive nuisance, tempting editors to categorize the biographical articles of anyone who has expressed a view on this controversial topic. That is not, i think, how we should categorize people. See a recent thread at the
help desk on this category, where an editor wants to do exactly that.
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. We do not delete categories simply because they can be misused, otherwise Category:Homophobia would be long gone. I don't see the small size of the category as a reason for deletion either.
WP:SMALLCAT states, "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members..." This isn't a category that by definition will never have more than a few members. Obviously it would be possible to start more articles about the views about homosexuality expressed by particular individuals.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 02:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. A view on homosexuality was a defining characteristic of
Fred Phelps and his
Westboro Baptist Church. Not the sole defining characteristic, but a notable defining characteristic. It was pretty much all he and his church were known for, yet he is not eligible for this obvious category unless someone writes an article "
Fred Phelps' views on homosexuality". However, if someone did, I anticipate there would rapidly be calls for it to be merged to a Section within the main article on him. The articles currently there don't remotely represent the range of views on homosexuality.
Rick Santorum isn't an acknowledged authority on homosexuality, merely someone with an opinion about it, yet he represents a third of the makeup of the articles in the category.
Chrisdevelop (
talk) 02:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
That is not a coherent rationale for deleting the category. You write that, "The articles currently there don't remotely represent the range of views on homosexuality." No, of course they don't. That is not a reason for deleting the category, however, as representing "the range of views on homosexuality" is in no sense its purpose. Rather its purpose is to group together similar articles (those about the views on homosexuality expressed by particular people) and it does that perfectly well.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 02:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
The
Category:Views on homosexuality criterion is “This category is for articles dealing with the views on homosexuality expressed by particular individuals.”, but notable views of the likes of
Fred Phelps,
John Shelby Spong,
Anita Bryant and
Harvey Milk could be included only if someone writes a separate article copying all the existing opinion already present in their articles. I would anticipate calls for satellite articles like that to be merged. There's nothing special about
Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality compared to those of the other notables I mentioned. Someone looking for articles like this would surely be incredulous that only three notables on Wikipedia expressed notable views on homosexuality.
Chrisdevelop (
talk) 02:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
As before, that is an incoherent rationale that suggests that you are confused about the purpose of categories on Wikipedia. The purpose of categories is to group together related articles and to serve as a navigational aid. The rationale for the category "Views on homosexuality" is to link together articles about people's views on homosexuality. It is inappropriate to advocate the deletion of a category such as this because you think the articles it contains should not exist. If your problem is actually with the articles themselves, then you are free to nominate them for deletion (though I am confident they would be kept). A deletion discussion for a category is a waste of time if your real objection to it is that you think the articles it contains should go. Deleting the category wouldn't result in the deletion of those articles.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 02:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't propose that the articles should be deleted. My objection to the current behaviour of this Category is that notable people who have expressed notable views on homosexuality cannot be added to it, unless their views are snipped out of their existing articles and pasted into a special article with the words '...views on homosexuality' appended to their name. If the aim is to avoid ad hominem, then that surely isn't achieved by highlighting this in an article that refers solely to their views on homosexuality, rather than linking it to a Section within a bio article that actually has a better chance of representing the whole person. At the very least, the Category criterion “This category is for articles dealing with the views on homosexuality expressed by particular individuals,” isn't clear enough to prevent editors adding such articles. If it is to remain and to be restricted to articles that, in my view potentially stigmatise individuals by making the entire article only about their view on homosexuality, then the criterion should reflect that.
Chrisdevelop (
talk) 03:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
If your complaint is that the category description does not allow individual people to be added to it, then that's a foolish complaint. So what if it doesn't? Why shouldn't a category have particular criteria that allow some articles, but not others, to be added to it? That is, of course, the only way that a category can function. A category that was simply for anyone who has ever expressed a view about homosexuality would be pointless and unworkable, as there are too many such people. If articles about views of homosexuality expressed by particular individuals are going to exist, then there is no reason not to have a category linking them together. It is more specific and more helpful than a category for any person who happens to have expressed an opinion about homosexuality. I have no idea what you are talking about when you suggest that the purpose of the category is to "avoid ad hominem".
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 03:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
FreeKnowledgeCreator: A lot of straw man going on here. Can you please stick to things I actually do say? I never proposed that any articles be deleted, nor did I propose that "anyone who has ever expressed a view about homosexuality" should be included. I likewise never said that "the purpose of the category is to avoid ad hominem". My reference to ad hominem is in the context of complaints that the category can be misused to make ad hominem characteristations, and that this isn't achieved when you make an entire article about that very subject. Please read my posts carefully and note that I am talking about notable people who have expressed notable views on homosexuality being excluded from a category whose reason for existence is declared to be for (notable) views on homosexuality by (notable) individuals.
Chrisdevelop (
talk) 03:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but your comments were (and are) so strange that it really is difficult to see what point you are trying to make. The articles you added the category to were
Salawa Abeni and
Olajumoke Orisaguna. It is quite preposterous to suggest that the specific views about homosexuality expressed by those two individuals are "notable", which in Wikipedia terms means that they would deserve a dedicated article, so I am afraid that I can only regard your comment as an attempt to confuse the issue.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 03:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) Comment While it is true that this category is not "by its very definition" restricted to a few articles, in practice I think it will be. Really, except in cases of noted psychotherapists or psychologists who have written about the issue (such as Freud), it is hard to see many cases in which such views would be both notable, and legitimately separate from a biography article. I take it that we are agreed that biography articles as such should not be in this category? Thus i question whether this category is likely to serve a useful function. And while the possibility of abuse may not be a good reason to delete a category, the strong possibility of continued abuse, along with very limited utility, does seem to me to be a valid reason for deletion. But we will see what the consensus is.
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I disagree totally. There are numerous people - in particular politicians - whose views about homosexuality become the subject of extensive discussion. In the case of
Mitt Romney, for example, there is more than enough material available to write an article specifically about his views on homosexuality, and more material than could easily fit into his dedicated biography. FYI, a whole book - Mitt Romney's Deception - was written attacking his views on gay rights issues.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 03:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Perhaps there is enough content to write such an article, but no one has done it, nor I think is likely to, and if anyone did, i would be inclined to call for merging it back into the biography article. Indeed I am strongly considering requesting this for the Rick Santorum article now in this category.
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
What would people think if this category were to have its definition changed to limit it to professional views? In short we would retain Freud and lose Santorum? Just a thought.
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I think the problem IS with the definition. It wastes an awful lot of time when you add a category in good faith, only to have it reverted even though it fits the category descriptor.
Chrisdevelop (
talk) 03:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Ah. Here I think we see the real problem. You added the category to a couple of articles (
Salawa Abeni and
Olajumoke Orisaguna), someone quite rightly reverted you, and that made you angry. You are simply wrong in thinking that the articles you added the category to fit "the category descriptor." The category was always intended for articles specifically about views expressed by individuals, not articles about individuals themselves, and was carefully written to make that clear. Categories do not get deleted just because an editor gets reverted when he adds them to articles or is confused about their purpose.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 03:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Please can we stick to civil discourse, and not make assumptions about my emotional state, or put words into my mouth, or make snide assertions about my motivations. This discussion arose out of those reversions, yes, and there were several as I was trying to find the right category and it wasted quite some time, and reversions don't look good against anyone's name. But this has now nothing to do with those articles, because once I had started thinking about this category, I realised that the Category's criterion actually permitted the addition of many notable individuals who had expressed views on homosexuality. Not any individual with a random viewpoint, as you intimated I was suggesting earlier, but notable individuals whose views on homosexuality were likewise notable. Note also that I am not the principal nominator for deletion here.
Chrisdevelop (
talk) 03:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
No, the category's description does not permit "the addition of many notable individuals who had expressed views on homosexuality." As written, it is specifically a category for articles about views, not for articles about individuals who have expressed those views, and your assertion to the contrary does not change that. You are of course wrong to imply that
Salawa Abeni and
Olajumoke Orisaguna's views about homosexuality are notable, meaning that they would merit dedicated articles.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 03:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Look I am leaving this discussion because I won't be spoken to like this. I never said that there should be dedicated articles about anyone's views on anything, nor most of the other statements you attribute to me, and then proceed to argue as though I actually said them. Classic Straw Man. You are putting words into my mouth. This is supposed to be an environment of cordial discourse to reach consensus. Almost everything you write is contemptuous, and condescending, and misrepresenting my motivations. Do whatever you like, but I am not participating. Goodbye.
Wikipedia:Five pillars: “Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility”
WP:CIVIL.
Chrisdevelop (
talk) 03:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I am not trying to be deliberately rude, and I apologize if my comments come across that way. Please understand that your comments have been confusing and that it is therefore difficult to understand exactly what you are trying to say. I did not attribute to you the view that dedicated articles about
Salawa Abeni and
Olajumoke Orisaguna's views about homosexuality should be created. I simply noted that it is incorrect to describe their views about homosexuality as notable, which in Wikipedia terminology means that they would merit the creation of such articles.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 04:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete This only has two actual articles, and I am not sure that the one on Santorum's views is justified, and have even less hope that that article meets NPOV guidelines. This is an invitation to poor categorization. We do delete categories because of likely misuse.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
That is a poor rationale for deleting the category. The state of the article
Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality has no relevance to this discussion. And no, categories are not deleted just because they can be misused, as witness Category:Homophobia, which gets misused constantly, but nevertheless still exists.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 21:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak keep but tighten criteria e.g. by changing "dealing with" to "specifically about". DexDor(talk) 05:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as vague. This could mean anyone who has a view on homosexuality whether they are for or against. A lot of the religious groups and organizations are already covered by
Category:LGBT and religion and there's
Category:LGBT politics for even more views. Another option is to make it an LGBT critics or LGBT criticism category, but that is also vague in that it could include LGBT folks who work as critics.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 14:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)reply
No, the criterion is not vague. It is perfectly clear. The category is for articles specifically about a person's view of homosexuality, and it helps anyone looking specifically for articles of the kind it includes, which is the purpose of a category. It is irrelevant that this could include either positive or negative views of homosexuality. That it potentially includes articles about both positive and negative views of homosexuality certainly means that the category has a rather general scope, but that is not the same thing as vagueness, which means lack of clarity as to meaning (check a dictionary). A category can potentially cover articles dealing with a wide range of different views without being in any way vague. Neither of the two articles the category contains would fit within Category:LGBT and religion or Category:LGBT politics.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 23:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)reply
It still would be
WP:OPINIONCAT: "Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals")." and
WP:NONDEF, not worth noting in the lead paragraph unless it's that's the only notable reason they have a Wikipedia page, like "X is an outspoken critic of ..." Also, if the critic is stating their opinion because of political or religious reasons then how does that work? Note that activists on either side of the issue are already covered by the other existing categories.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 18:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)reply
You have missed the point of what WP:OPINIONCAT states ("Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions"). Category:Views about homosexuality is explicitly for articles for views held by individual people, not for articles about individual people themselves.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 00:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)reply
"Views on" doesn't imply individual though. I would expect to see articles that focus on a set of standard views on the topic as with
Category:Political spectrumAngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SMALLCAT and not likely that we will ever have a large number of stand-alone articles about people's views on homosexuality. Perhaps needless to say, but entire biographies do not belong in this category, per
WP:OPINIONCAT.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per Marcocapelle, etc.
StAnselm (
talk) 03:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete purely on the basis that 3 articles isn't justification for keeping this, I would have no objections to this being recreated but just filled more. Delete for now. –
Davey2010Talk 16:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - there will be very few bios that call for an entire "views on homosexuality" spinoff. --
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)reply
As the nominator,
Chrisdevelop, I don't get to decide the result. An uninvolved admin or experienced editor will close this, determine the outcome, and do the deletion if the decision is to delete. That ought to happen soon, but I really cna't say when it will.
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:30, 21 May 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.