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. –
FayenaticLondon 11:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: "forwarders" is not an established term in the English language. C679 21:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename as by the nominator
Cloudz679 above. I created the category. Sorry fot the wrong English term.
Sander.v.Ginkel(
Talk) 21:29, 10 April 2016 (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:Turkish terrorism
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: Created by an editor with a clear pro-Kurdish nationalist bias, this new category groups his new article
Kuşkonar massacre about a Turkish massacre of Kurds with a pre-existing article
2003 Istanbul bombings, which was an al-Qaida attack within Turkey where at least one of the perpetrators was a Turk. The Kuşkonar massacre seemed to already have been adequately categorized as a Turkish massacre and persecution of Kurds. Because pro-Kurdish editors have failed after repeated attempts to blank, empty and delete
Category:Kurdish terrorism, we get this, now, as a sort of tit-for-tat, I suppose. I personally wish we could topic ban the lot of them, both sides. Anyway, this seems to be a case of
WP:SYNTH, conflating different acts as "Turkish terrorism."
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 14:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
FYI, the nominator has since added a reference (broken) of an article stating that a
Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front had initially claimed responsibility. This has apparently been done to bolster the argument that this is a case of indigenous "Turkish terrorism."
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 14:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
It looks like you support "another" side by calling me as "pro-Kurdish nationalist bias". This is clearly attack against me. A militant Turkish Islamic group, the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front took responsibility, I added source and statement to the original page. They have white washed the article. It was Turkish Islamic group who carried out the attack.[1] Also, the perpetrators were the Turks. I have no idea why this category should be deleted, since Kurdish terrorism category wasn't also deleted (I was asked to give my opinion about it).
You are trying to remove Turkish terrorism category, but support keeping Kurdish terrorism category.
The source says that Turkish islamic group took the responsibility and perpetrators were the Turks. Isn't this Turkish terrorism? Just check Kurdish terrorism articles, totally similar events. If you remove this category, then you should remove Kurdish terrorism category also if their events are similar.
You are calling me pro-Kurdish nationalist bias. This is attack against me.
You reversed my changes and kept statements which were clearly against
WP:ORIGINAL and
WP:FAKE. Keeping falsified statements in articles is not allowed. Your hippie-dippie justification is clearly showing how biased you are.
Ferakp (
talk) 15:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
It's called
WP:Neutrality: look it up. Even with your additions, the 2003 Istanbul bombings currently still assigns blame to Turks and foreign nationals trained by Al-Qaida. I don't particularly care one way or the other. This seemed to me to be a care of POV pushing and SYNTH, but if the category stays after full discussion by unaffiliated editors, fine.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
What makes you think that this category should not stay but the category Kurdish terrorism should stay? Do you have any appropriate reason for that?
Ferakp (
talk) 15:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Because we're not here to help you fight your dreary proxy war on Wikipedia.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a winning argument. The Turkish terrorism category will have to be kept on its own merits -- and it might -- not because the other side has one.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Would
Category:Terrorism in Turkey provide a NPOV target? This may be criticised as excluding what Turkey has done in counter-insurgency operations beyond its borders, but the Turks would not doubt say that they are to suppress insurgency, not to engender terror.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The Kurdish terrorism category wasn't deleted and thus I don't see any appropriate reason why this should be deleted. How is that possible that Kurdish terrorism category is allowed but Turkish terrorism category not. How are you going to explain this? There is no explanation for such thing. Kurdish terrorism category is full of events which are not considered as terrorist attacks. I added only two events and both are related to the Turkish terrorism (sources confirm them), just like others have added similar events to the Kurdish terrorism category. If you want to delete the category because you believe that those events are not related to Turkish terrorism, that's still not a good reason to delete the whole category, since I can add dozens of "Turkish terrorism" related events. This is the point where I don't understand you. You let Turkish editors to add random events from the Kurdish-Turkish conflict to the Kurdish terrorism category, you keep Kurdish terrorism category but you want to delete Turkish terrorism category, you reversed my changes and kept statements which were clearly against
WP:ORIGINAL&
WP:VERIFY and now you call me a editor with a clear pro-Kurdish nationalist bias. Look, I am not against this, you can call me as a monkey if you want, I don't care. However, if Wikipedia allows the Kurdish terrorism category but not the Turkish terrorism category, then I will immediately leave Wikipedia. At least, I know I am in totally wrong place.
Ferakp (
talk) 16:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
No, we don't "let Turkish editors to add random events." I can assure you we've been just as vigilant when it comes to Turkish POV pushing. I played a large role in getting anti-Kurdish/pro-Turk POV editor
User:Hassan Rebell blocked, for his campaign of harassment against User:Vekoler. happen to be strongly pro-Kurdish in my political views, but that's not the issue here. Wikipedia does a very poor job of representing controversial issues and it must be strongly policed, or it very quickly becomes an even bigger mess. Now, you want to use this Cfd as the test case whether you stay or not? Fine. Regardless of the outcome, based on what I've seen from you, I think you are"totally in the wrong place," fwiw.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 16:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete both Neither this nor
Category:Kurdish terrorism is a viable categorization scheme. There is no per se Kurdish terrorism nor is there per se Turkish or, say, American terrorism. While quite some Kurds are with the PKK or other militant groups, others follow the AKP or the KDP, Hüda-Par, Gülen, or even ISIS. The same can be said about Turkish people – many don't endorse Turkish ISIS terrorists, and quite some are calling out state-sponsored and outright state terrorism by Turkey, and would disapprove being associated with it. While deleting one but not the other would be quite problematic – and I don't think this is a case of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – there's no good reason to keep either of them. --03:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
PanchoS (
talk •
contribs)
Comment: With the above argument, ALL categories in the
Category:Nationalist terrorism series would have to be deleted as well. Therefore this is not a valid argument. --13:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.106.114.179 (
talk •
contribs)
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:Video games based on iCarly
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 17:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose.
WP:SMALLCAT has an exemption for small categories that are part of an broad category tree, which "Video games based on..." is. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 03:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete.
Category:iCarly is sufficient for every other release in other media—no reason why this cat is needed for two games (which are likely merge candidates anyway). czar 15:34, 23 April 2016 (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:Seven signs in John's Gospel
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. czar 15:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak delete, while this category may easily grow to 8 articles (four more signs), it is questionable if this characteristic is defining enough. By the way, the seven signs have already been listified in the main article.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete but per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. The signs are clearly a defining theological element of the Gospel of John but there's not agreement on how many there are and which passages qualify. That ambiguity is better handled in the article space, and
Seven signs in the Gospel of John does a good job.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete A category with 4 items is
WP:SMALLCAT per definition. I do not see much scope for expansion.
Dimadick (
talk) 06:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Has the potential to attract innumerable crancks, millenialists, rhapsodyists and moderate, but trite, apocalyptic theorists.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 20:09, 22 April 2016 (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:Trial of Oscar Pistorius
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)reply
We see a lot of non-defining performance categories for show biz people but this category groups judges -
1,
2- and lawyers -
3,
4- by one particular case they worked on. (The category also contains the murder victim -
5- showing the loosely defined nature of how people are associated with this trial.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:PERFCAT. Certainly the judges and lawyers have been involved in many trials through their careers, and the victim was not involved in the trial at all. kennethaw88 •
talk 23:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:African Airlines Association
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.
Every single article in this category is already in the
Category:Airlines of Africa tree so this basically serves as a duplicate category for airlines that happen to pay dues. The
African Airlines Association doesn't appear to be an especially active
trade association anyway based on
a sample of their annual meeting so this isn't defining. The contents of the category are already listified
here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
DElete -- We have deleted categories for universities by membership of organisations. WE should apply that precedent to airline associations.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:51, 10 April 2016 (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.