Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 28#Category:Controversial books

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 16:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of :Category:American musical groups, so I have already moved all its contents to the other category. I am now nominating this category for deletion, as it was done in the past with :Category:U.S. film directors, renamed :Category:American film directors. See also :Category:American writers and :Category:American screenwriters as a reference. Mushroom 22:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy merge to :Category:American musical groups. Postdlf 02:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since Mushroom has already merged --Rogerd 03:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Well then, delete away! Postdlf 01:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Carina22 12:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

: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.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 16:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Same reason as Natives of West Glamorgan - see yesterday's entries - but this time nominated by the author (Sloman) Deb 21:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support, this category is now redundant. Natives are standardised on administrative counties in Wales. (P.S. Sloman was not the author of this category and has never touched it, but anyway, thanks for nominating it for deletion deb - will get these Welsh categories nice and tidy in time.)
• Delete per above. Mushroom 01:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Carina22 12:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

: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.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 16:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a meaningful category. Most major business have a holding company at the top of their corporate structure. I have moved one article to the more meaningful :Category:Conglomerate companies. The other two are already in other suitable categories. Delete Rhollenton 20:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment would this be better as a cat redirect? There are already 2 new articles in this cat and it is a very common term. Vegaswikian 06:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• There aren't any new articles, they are the same two I left in place yesterday. Rhollenton 12:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• From the article, 'A conglomerate is a large company that consists of divisions of often seemingly unrelated businesses.' Holding companies do not always meet that definition. Many of the ones I'm aware of, are in tightly related industries.
• Delete Carina22 12:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Suggested category is not inclusive of a holding company. Vegaswikian 06:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• That isn't the point. There are thousands of holding companies with articles. It is a meaningless category. Carina22 15:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Useless as explained, and not in use either. CalJW 22:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

: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.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a useful category. Only contains two articles, which are both about companies in the same group. Merge into :Category:Defence companies Rhollenton 19:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not the usual terminology. Carina22 12:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. BD2412 T 19:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• OPPOSE not all weapons companies are defense companies, not all defense companies are weapons companies. An avionics manufacturer may be a defense contractor, whereas the manufacturer of hunting knives could have nothing to do with defense .132.205.45.148 20:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. MONGO 06:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge I don't think there are likely to be any articles about manufacturers of hunting knives, and if there are they can go in :Category:Manufacturing companies until there are enough to create a subcategory. CalJW 23:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

: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.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 16:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The correct category is :category:Airlines of Canada. Rhollenton 19:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Rhollenton 19:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per rule #4. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate. Mushroom 01:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• 'Speedy delete Carina22 12:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The companies that were listed here are not airlines. Listing these companies as an airline is not correct. Since some of the companies removed are holding companies, they could be listed there, but that group is was also suggeted for deletion. Vegaswikian 06:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Vegaswikian 06:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• You are splitting hairs. The category system should be useful and consistent. Carina22 15:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Standardisation matters. CalJW 22:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

: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.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Native Americans is used to contain articles about Native American individuals. It has an ambiguous title, which would be more precise if changed to :Category:Native American people. This naming would match the wording of similar categories, like :Category:First Nations people, :Category:Finnish people, and :Category:German people. This name change would also allow for the removal of the disambiguating paragraph currently placed within :Category:Native Americans. Kurieeto 14:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• KeepNeutral (or merge with First Nations which is just a Canadian/USAian usage difference, for some of the same people). "First Nations people" is required by the grammatical form, but "Finnish people" would be better as "Finns", and "German people" as "Germans". Avoid needless verbosity. That said, a closer look shows most (but not all) other categories include the ugly extra word "people", so I guess I won't try to swim upstream on this. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support It's clearer and merging the US and Canadian categories is not a good idea. Osomec 19:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support for reasons given. Carina22 15:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

: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.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 16:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Duplicates Democratic Wikipedians and has no members at this time. StuffOfInterest 13:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Reverse merge and rename One doesn't have to be an American or a member of a particular party to be a "Democratic Wikipedian". Rename :category:Wikipedian Democrats (U.S. political party). Osomec 13:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Both. Another stupid pair of vanity categories. You want to delete all the Jewish-oriented categories and keep all the Wikipedian categories; what a bunch of muffins you people are. 12.73.195.133 15:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Both Serves no real pupose. If one wants to declare his or her political affiliation, he or she can mention it on his or her user page. Soltak | Talk 01:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Both per above --Rogerd 03:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both Divisive. Carina22 12:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If the consensus is to not have political affiliation categories, then the entire :Category:Wikipedians by politics and all of its subs should go. Still, it should be noted, when someone chooses to declare their political beliefs it can help in disproving POV bias in settling disputes on politically related articles. Having a grouping may not affect that, but an editor may choose to ask someone else of a similiar persuasion to help on issues, for better or for worse. --StuffOfInterest 12:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all Wikipedian political affiliation categories - Wikipedia is not a grand social experiment, it is an effort to write an encyclopedia. I firmly hold that such categorizations are likely to do more harm than good to that effort. BD2412 T 19:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all, per BD2412. What about :Category:Wikipedians by religion? Mushroom 19:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all, per BD2412. Osomec 19:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all, per BD2412. Postdlf 01:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, although this category type seems prone to be devisive, it can be a way for users to find others with similar interests for collaborative purposes. Perhaps it should be renamed :Category:Wikipedians interested in the U.S. Democratic Party and recategorized under :Category:Wikipedians by fields of interest. On the other hand, the current organization seems simpler. — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all, per BD2412. CalJW 22:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

: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.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• :Category:Emperors of Cao Wei to :Category:Cao Wei emperors
• :Category:Empresses of Cao Wei to :Category:Cao Wei empresses

I must admit that when I last proposed (successfully) to have "Emperors of Wei" renamed to "Emperors of Cao Wei," I forgot to check analogies with other Chinese states' emperors, and the categories now look out of compliance with analogous states. I am requesting that these be renamed so that the names would match the other states' emperors/empresses in :Category:Chinese emperors and :Category:Chinese empresses. --Nlu 08:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as per nominator. CalJW 22:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

: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.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate category CG janitor 10:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge Osomec 13:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Carina22 12:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

: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.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 16:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Either inherently subjective or absurdly broad

• Delete. I'm happy to accept that controversial is used in a non-pejorative sense. But in the sense of "raising controversy", practically every work of non-fiction that is widely read does so. Maybe a limited class, like certain biographies, can be non-controversial in simply listing some usefully grouped facts. But all the books that advance some particular novel opinion or thesis are ipso facto controversial. Those books that "fall stillborn from the press" (to quote Hume) may not achieve controversy, but neither are they thereby notable (and probably don't have articles). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Lulu here, and moreover, this shows the need to categorize these books by actual topic; most of these books really fit in in one or another "controversial" genre.--Pharos 21:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As above, completely subjective and impossible to maintain. Soltak | Talk 01:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's pure POV. Mushroom 01:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasons. Postdlf 02:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV --Rogerd 03:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there isnt' POV involved, as it is very obvious when a book envokes a large amount of controversey. --Fallout boy 05:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ideally this should work, but in an open encyclopedia it probably won't. Carina22 15:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete CalJW 22:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV. Some cases will not be argued, but many will. gidonb 07:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

: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.