Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 28 September 30 >

September 29[edit]

Category:Star Wars militaries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Star Wars (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems an unnecessary and inapt category. None of the category's current "members" are really "militaries;" at best, they are fighting forces or components of a larger military, or in the case of the "Rebel Alliance" a larger organization that includes a military. This seems a generally superfluous cat trudging down the path of over-categorization. --EEMIV (talk) 23:42, 29 September 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:BBC Three Counties Radio programmes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. A single-item category created by a particularly prolific creator of questionable categories. (Several dozen of the user's created categories have been nominated on this page alone!) I suggest that unless/until there are more articles that could be categorized in this way, it would be best to simply upmerge the article to the categories indicated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. If there were four or five programs to categorize this would be justified, but it's a WP:SMALLCAT with just one entry in it (and little prospect of expansion, since it's not easy for single-station local radio programs to clear WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 30 September 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:BBC Radio Newcastle programmes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. A single-item category created by a particularly prolific creator of questionable categories. (Several dozen of the user's created categories have been nominated on this page alone!) I suggest that unless/until there are more articles that could be categorized in this way, it would be best to simply upmerge the article to the categories indicated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. If there were four or five programs to categorize this would be justified, but it's a WP:SMALLCAT with just one entry in it (and little prospect of expansion, since it's not easy for single-station local radio programs to clear WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 30 September 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:Tehrangeles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Neologism which is not WP:DEFINING of its contents. This does not refer to a specific defined neighbourhood, but simply encompasses the entire Persian community in all of Metro LA regardless of whether they live in "Persian Square" or all the way out in Yorba Linda. Apart from the eponym, all we have here is History of the Iranian Americans in Los Angeles, two films that happen to be about ethnically Persian Angelenos, and a Category:People from Tehrangeles subcategory that's also up for deletion below for similar reasons. This is not a good or defining basis for a category. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No basis as cat. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:39, 30 September 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:People from Tehrangeles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tehrangeles is a portmanteau referring to the large number of Persians living in Los Angeles, not a physical place people can be from... Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People are categorized as being from geographic places, not cultural neologisms that don't have defined geographic boundaries. While Los Angeles does have a "Persian Square" neighbourhood, "Tehrangelenos" aren't necessarily from that specific neighbourhood — they can literally be from anywhere in the entire LA metro. So no, this is not an appropriate basis for categorization. And neither is the parent category Category:Tehrangeles. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is not a place, and I think "People of Iranian descent from LA" would also be overcat. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:50, 29 September 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:American people of Canadian-Jewish descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge/Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-WP:DEFINING intersection. Whether a person's Jewish ancestors were American or Canadian residents is not a substantive point of distinction that warrants categorization as such; while I can certainly see a case for things like Category:American people of German-Jewish descent or Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent, it does not automatically follow that every country that has ever had Jewish residents with American descendants necessarily needs to be treated equivalently. For added bonus, a considerable number of people filed here (Bellow, Edgar Bronfman Sr., Firestone, Frum, Hiller, Levine, Pinker, Rakoff, Sahl, Scholes and Zuckerman, and that's just among the names I recognized without even having to look at the articles to find out) are not just of Canadian Jewish descent, but are themselves actual Canadian-born Canadian Jews who later moved to the United States as expatriates. (And if that's a basis for inclusion, then why aren't Howie Mandel and David Steinberg and Lorne Michaels and William Shatner also in here?) "Canadian-Jewish" is almost entirely a second hand identity, because the Jewish presence in Canada is rooted entirely in the migration of German and Russian and Lithuanian and Polish and Israeli Jews rather than in a natively Jewish culture, so it's not a useful distinction for the purposes of ethnicity categorization. And since the Category:People of Canadian-Jewish descent parent has no other content besides this, it should just be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 29 September 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.

Islamic feminists by individual country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge. -- Tavix (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-WP:DEFINING intersection. It is not useful to subdivide Category:Islamic feminists by each individual country that they might happen to come from — the combination is not a defining characteristic in and of itself, and all of the resulting subcategories are WP:SMALLCATs with just a handful of articles each. All of the categories combined hold just 58 people total, so having 28 categories to hold them is a hindrance, not an aid, to navigating the category tree. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, it's not quite that I missed that category exactly — I just somehow accidentally removed or forgot to type the word "Islamic" from the nominated category in the list above, so that it was erroneously listed as just "Sudanese feminists" instead of the actual intended category. (I didn't mistag the wrong category with the CFD tag, though — my error was only in typing out the list at the top of this discussion.) I've corrected that error, so thanks for the catch. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If merged, it should be a triple upmerge to all parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all No category has more than 10 articles, even at that several individiauls are in more than one of these by nationality category. There is no where near enough articles to justify this by nationality split.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 21 October 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:Dread Empire's Fall[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Basically empty category about a novel series consisting only of the main article. (The book articles were unsourced, content-free permastubs and I redirected them to the series article.)  Sandstein  18:17, 29 September 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.

LGBT Muslims by individual country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-WP:DEFINING triple intersection. It is not useful to subdivide Category:LGBT Muslims by each individual country that they might happen to come from — the combination of religion + nationality + LGBT is not a defining characteristic in and of itself, and all of the resulting subcategories are WP:SMALLCATs with just one, two or three articles each. All of the categories combined hold just 35 people total, so having 23 categories to hold them is a hindrance, not an aid, to navigating the category tree. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, makes sense to me, particularly because the WP:SMALLCAT rationale. Sionk (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- all are too small intersections to be worth keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 9 October 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:Islamist feminists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: not renamed. -- Tavix (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Islam and Islamism are not synonymous". Islamism is a political ideology that also seeks the implementation of Sharia law, which is incompatible with modern-day Feminsim. Moreover, most of the figures on this category are Muslims, not necessarily Islamists. Should be renamed into "Muslim Feminists" and all subcategories. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Islamic" does not equal "Islamism". This is not just a category for Muslims who happen to be feminists; it's a category for proponents of a specific thing called Islamic feminism, which is specifically about feminist analysis of Islam itself. It is entirely possible for a Muslim woman to be a general feminist and not an "Islamic feminist" per se, frex if she's not particularly religious and approaches her feminism from a secular rather than an Islamic perspective — and, by the same token, it is entirely possible for a person to be an "Islamic feminist" while not being a Muslim, because again the category is about feminist analysis of Islam and not about the personal religious affiliations of the feminist. So "Muslim feminists" is not synonymous with "Islamic feminists" per se, because in both directions it is possible for a person to be one but not the other. Islamic feminism is a real thing, which its proponents are properly defined by — and the adjective "Islamic" does not mean or imply that the person is an Islamist, because Islamic is a neutral adjective for things pertaining to Islam, and does not carry the ideologically loaded Sharia/terrorism/Taliban/ISIL implications of Islamist. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever Islamic means, the category is used to categorize feminist Muslims.. Muslim is a more descriptive and meaningful term than the vague "Islamic". Makeandtoss (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's used to categorize people who work within the specific ideological framework of Islamic feminism. A person does not necessarily have to be Muslim to be an Islamic feminist, as anybody whose work is about feminist analysis of Islam is an Islamic feminist regardless of whether they're personally Muslim or Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Zoroastrian (even if Muslims are much likelier to work within that framework than others are, being a Muslim is not inherently a requirement of the field), and a Muslim feminist is not necessarily an Islamic feminist, if her feminism is focused on general cross-cultural issues like pay equity rather than on religious analysis of Islam (Amal Alamuddin Clooney, for example, is just the regular kind of feminist and not the Islamic kind, even though she is a Muslim.) There may be a case to be made that we should have categories for both things, but they're not interchangeable terms for the same thing such that merging them would be justifiable. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To prove your point, there should be at least one non-Muslim feminist in that category? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Bearcat, I don't think Islamism has anything to do with this. The point of the category is to categorize those involved in Islamic feminism, not feminists who happen to be Muslim. While it's true that it might be difficult (though not impossible) to find a non-Muslim person involved in Islamic feminism, the fact is that renaming the category to be "Muslim feminists" will unnecessarily expand the scope of the category to encompass all people who are feminists and Muslims. Such people may not be involved in Islamic feminism at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons listed by Bearcat. Dimadick (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the category is not renamed, Category:Muslim feminists can still be created to host Muslim feminists who are not particularly affiliated with Islamic feminism. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: what is the case for wanting/needing Category:Muslim feminists? If such a category is not to categorize people involved in Islamic feminism, it would just be a garden variety category that combines religion with being a feminist. Of what utility or interest is that? We don't have a scheme for feminists by religion. I can see a use for Islamic feminists, but not one for Muslim feminists. (Of course, because of the nature of the subject, most Islamic feminists are going to be Muslim, but it just seems to me that if anyone claims to be interested in learning specifically about Muslim feminists, what they probably are really interested in by definition is Islamic feminists.) It's kind of like categorizing Category:Christian pacifists—the real interest is that they are involved in Christian pacifism, not that they are pacifists who happen to be Christian. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. The combination of Islam and feminism is exceptional enough to merit categorization and the existence of Islamic feminism confirms that the intersection between Islam and feminism is an issue. 2. Just practical, while it will be very difficult to assess whether one affiliates with Islamic Feminism (it's more clearly a topic than a set of people), it will be easy to assess that one affiliates with Islam and with feminism. Likewise, not all members of Category:Christian pacifists may be involved in "Christian pacifism" per se (esp. when looking at the subcategories) and I don't have a problem with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just seems like so much overlap to me. If the Islam-ness of a person is significant enough to be intersecting with their feminism, then chances are they are an Islamic feminist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather go for certainty than for chances. Agree that we should try to avoid overlap, therefore the nomination actually makes quite some sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge REname -- The opponents are mixing up Islamic with Islamists. I suspect that an Islamist feminist would be an oxymoron, so that I see no objection to the merger. Furthermore, there is another nom further up this page which will remove the national categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the opponents are not mixing up Islamic with Islamists — the nominator mixed up Islamic with Islamists, and nominated it for renaming specifically on the basis of that mixup, and the opposers are the ones who are pointing out the error. Bearcat (talk) 06:56, 11 October 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:German feminists of Turkish Kurdish descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not understanding the need for this triple (or quadruple) intersection of characteristics. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – its single article Seyran Ateş, a priceless boon for those who delight in the endless intersection of categories, is already more than adequately categorised. Further, there is no Category:People of Turkish Kurdish descent. Oculi (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-defining intersection of unrelated traits. For one thing, Turkish and Iranian and Iraqi and Syrian Kurds are all one ethnic group, not four distinct ethnic groups — it's appropriate to categorize Kurdish people who live in those countries appropriately, but they do not reify into four distinct ethnic backgrounds for the purposes of subcatting foreigners of Kurdish ancestry. And at the other end, Category:German feminists doesn't need to be subcatted for their individual ethnic backgrounds either. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming; There are many Kurdish descent people in Germany so I think renaming to Category:German feminists of Kurdish descent and Category:German feminists of Turkish descent should be created in two for compromise.I am not 95% againts if these will be renamed or deleted for good reason but compromise renameing should be concidered before fully deletion. --Mannerheimo (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How would Category:German feminists be defined by their ethnic background? Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well one can argue that German feminists are all German but not other minorities living in nation state called Germany because German is ethnicity and nationality. But German Turkish is minority which how also Turkish identety. --Mannerheimo (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which impacts on and defines their feminism how, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 2 October 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:Bahá'í Head of States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 19:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no overall scheme for categorizing heads of state by religion, nor would it make much sense to do so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SMALLCAT, although there is nothing intrinsically wrong with having categories for heads of state by religion, seeing as such a big deal is concerning the beliefs of some politicians.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SMALLCAT. I certainly see Prisencolin's point that there might actually be a case for categorizing heads of state by religion (although I'm not 100% sure that I agree with it), but at present there's no organized schematic of actually doing so — and so there's not much justification for this to exist in isolation, especially if it exists for just one person. And even if such a scheme were to be implemented, the plural of "head of state" is "heads of state", not "head of states", so it would still have to be renamed anyway. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon further investigation, there is a Category:Monarchs by religion tree, but it also seems to be categorizing non–head of state royalty, such as queens consort – which it should not be doing, since a "monarch" is by definition a ruling head of state. I think it makes some sense to categorize monarchs by religion, but less so for all heads of state. On balance, I think religion has tended to influence monarchical heads of state more so than other heads of state. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upmerge to all parents. We do have a Bahai monarchs category that is currently empty. This is a case of a head of state who converted to a non-native religion, the possibility of getting much further population is slight. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 9 October 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:Expatriate basketball people in Montenegro[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete, but it sounds like there is general agreement that a broader nomination to consider certain expatriate categories could be useful. Category:American expatriate basketball people in Montenegro was not nominated as part of this discussion so nothing can be done to it as one user proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too specific to ever be populated —swpbT 13:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that I have added a pre-existing category as a subcategory: Category:American expatriate basketball people in Montenegro.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'd support this in theory, it is a rather bizarre and non-defining three-way categorisation. But then that rationale would apply to all "Expatriate basketball people in FOOland" categories. I don't really understand the 'expatriate sportspeople' categories, they seem to contain anyone that played their sport overseas for any length of time! Sionk (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the general problem. It needs a broader nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:33, 5 October 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:Hebephilia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:Original research violations. Pederasty‎ is not hebephilia. And there are no sources in the Breast ironing or Sexual cleansing articles tying breast ironing and sexual cleansing to hebephilia. Hebephilia is not simply about the age range; it is specifically about adults sexually preferring early to mid-pubescents, and there is not much out there about the characteristics of hebephilia. Furthermore, the concept of hebephilia is significantly debated, as seen in the Hebephilia article. All of this makes it clear that hebephilia categories are a matter of POV not supported by the sources; instead, they are a matter of editors attaching anything to the term hebephilia that they personally view as being covered by the term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated by nominator --Iztwoz (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories are for navigation, not for definition. If there are more than a couple of articles related to this concept, and if a reader who is interested hebephilia would be interested in those articles, then they belong in the category. Or, to put it another way, it doesn't actually matter that pederasty isn't the same thing has hebephilia (although the nom is correct that there is a small difference between "an adult man having sex with a teenage boy" and "an adult man preferring sex with a teenage boy"). For the purposes of categorization, it only matters that if you're looking for articles on this subject, then here are some articles that you'll very likely be interested in.
    I'm dubious about the inclusion of a couple of the current articles listed in it (which should presumably be discussed at each of their talk pages), but not about the overall validity of having a category on the subject. I'm also willing to compromise on an informal "merge" to Category:Pederasty, e.g., by placing a note at the top of that category that says editors have agreed to include subjects about hebephilia there, rather than having a separate category with significantly overlapping content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per whatamidoing. Pwolit iets (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there has to be a sourced statement in the article which justifies inclusion in any category. Deducing from an article that it belongs in a category is exactly WP:Original research. Oculi (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, if you read WP:NOR, it says "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." with a footnote that says "By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy". There is no requirement that a sourced statement exists. There is only a requirement that it would be possible to source a statement, if some editor were willing to expend the necessary time, effort, money, and skill to find a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF, the content of this category isn't about hebephilia. If not deleted, oppose merging since pederasty since this is something completely different than hebephilia. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is deletion the best way to clean up the contents of a category? Disagreeing with the current contents of an article is widely consider an invalid rationale for deleting an article. It seems to be that it ought to be an equally invalid rationale for a category, unless perhaps the category were turning into a sort of attractive nuisance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If an article or category gets entirely empty because of lack of content it is deleted. In case of categories, in addition, WP:SMALLCAT may apply. So if you know a reasonable number (e.g. five) of other articles that do fit in this category, please share the names of these articles and we'll discuss it further. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The two articles in the category seem to have little to do with the subject. I am prepared to accept that the article should survive. The two subcategories may need re-parenting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category was not tagged with Template:Cfd, so rather than closing the discussion, I have tagged the category and relisted it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 29 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_29&oldid=1074817545"