Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 3

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< March 2 March 4 >

March 3 edit

edit

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 speedy delete (G7). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 13:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this as a category instead of a template mistakenly. Esprit15d 21:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy deleted then. CG 15:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Drugs cheats in sport edit

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 to Doping cases in sport. Syrthiss 12:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: "Drugs cheats" is a POV and potentially libelous designation -- some of the people listed here (example: Olga Pyleva) were disqualified for alledgedly accidentally ingesting a banned substance as an unlabeled ingredient in over-the-counter medication. I propose to rename all subcategories "Drugs cheats in..." to "Doping cases in...", although deleting the categories outright is also an option, and has been considered before: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Category:Drugs cheats in sport. Mareklug talk 20:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Failing that, rename to "Sports disqualifications due to drug ingestion" might work, although its a bit verbiose. Perhaps someone has a better idea? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly don't think it should be deleted. This might end up with a slightly different list, but how about renaming to Category:Sportspeople punished for drug violations?--Mike Selinker 23:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps renamed, but definitely don't delete. ReeseM 00:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I suggest the rename of "Sports people in drug scandals." JoshuaZ 01:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your proposed renaming does not cover easily the 6 subcategories, which is why I proposed renaming to Doping cases in... -- there are in need of renaming, in turn: Category:Drugs cheats in sport, Category:Drugs cheats in athletics, Category:Drugs cheats in cricket, Category:Drugs cheats in cycling, Category:Drugs cheats in weightlifting, and Category:Drugs cheats in winter sports -- Mareklug talk 12:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree the categories are inadequate as is, though the suggested Doping cases in... fails to describe whether a sportsperson is guilty - ultimately it could be used to describe people aquitted in doping cases too, I'll suggest Doping convicts in sports though that will include people taken for recreational drugs too, but I think that is up to each article to clarify. A notice has been made on Category:Drugs cheats in cycling to include it in this cfd, so I thought I'ld mention that. Poulsen 12:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Publicly admitted such use. is one of the conditions of all these "Drugs cheats in..." categories, so Doping convicts in sports does not fit the bill. I still think Doping cases in... is the best-fit renaming solution proposed so far. Ultimately, as you say, it is up to the article to specify the circumstances, conviction, acquittal, or an admission of doping. The main thing is to get rid of the 6 "Drugs cheats in..." phrasings because they are not NPOV and are libelous. -- Mareklug talk 14:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Doping cases in.... A neutral and wide category to cover the whole topic; both proven and unproven cases (which if one desires may be made subcategories) Mukadderat 18:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Doping cases in sport. GCarty 13:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep & rename: Poor choice of terms, but a basic and viable cat.
  • Keep and rename: Agree that the current name is a very poor choice, but the cat is viable. Looks like "Doping cases in..." may be the best choice. — Dale Arnett 15:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename with a neutral and accurate name. FloNight talk 10:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Seqsea (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Also "Doping cases..." has the beauty of being identical in British English and American English, contra Drugs cheats vs. Drug cheats Carlossuarez46 23:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Roman Catholic painters edit

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. Syrthiss 12:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion does not strike me as a meaningful way of classifying painters; there are no parallel categories for other religious traditions. -choster 19:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Category:Roman Catholics lists Gerald Bull, the designer of huge cannons, once employed by Saddam Hussein. It feels as joke (to me). Pavel Vozenilek 19:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Silly category. If they're well known Catholics, and they are painters, they'll be in Catholics and Painters (Artists, whichever) cats anyway. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Darwinek 11:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No objection to listifying. Postdlf 16:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is hard to verify and somewhat subjective. Being born (and baptized) into a Catholic family may make you Catholic to some while to others a further manifestation is required to be Catholic. For example, see the debate about Joseph Goebbels (while not a painter, the same debate could go on about Adolf Hitler, who – among other things – was) at [1] Carlossuarez46 23:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that Category:Roman Catholic actors is pending deletion review, after I speedied an accidental recreation of it. Please take a look and leave your comments there as well; right now, I'm the only one opposing undeletion. Postdlf 20:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Religious NPOV disputes edit

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. Syrthiss 12:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Largely unused and duplicate category. Often entries get listed in NPOV and religious NPOV because no templates exist for religious NPOV. Sorting disputes will eventually be done by date (per relevant talk pages). As about the only one that uses the category to clean up NPOV disputes, it isn't helpful. -- Jbamb 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Eponymous musical terms edit

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 and articlefy (?). Syrthiss 12:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are not for manually managed lists. The actual category contains no articles or images. This should be an article, not a category. I am proposing the category be deleted and the content moved to an article. Esprit15d 18:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Could make quite useful list in current form. Pavel Vozenilek 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Move to eponymous article, which I will create. Unfortunately, I know of no way to keep the page history when moving the contents to an article. -- Samuel Wantman 10:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Temple and synagogues architecture to Category:Jewish temple and synagogue architecture edit

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. Syrthiss 12:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The temples intended are the Jewish ones, but >99.9% of temples in the world are not Jewish. The plural is incorrect. Bhoeble 16:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]


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

Category:Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums edit

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. —akghetto talk 09:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list has nowhere near the currency or the established, systematized selection process of, say, the Fortune 500; it's a subjective and proprietary ranking. Rolling Stone isn't above the odd marketing ploy now and then. -choster 06:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Famous and notable list. Gamaliel 07:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a 2003 list and there will probably be many more list over the years by this publication or others. Delete to avoid incipient category clutter. Bhoeble 16:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a fixed list from 2003 so will not ever be added to. It's more appropriate as a list. --JeffW 16:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rolling Stone is iconic for its mucical opinion, and regardless of what happens from here on out, that album has earned that distinction, and it is reasonable to include it here. Since it is a fixed list, it makes even more since to keep it, since the albums in questions will always have received that distinction. Unlike, say, the current Top 40 - a much more dynamic list which would be nearly impossible to maintain.--Esprit15d 18:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not being able to have it as a list is no excuse for a having a bad category. ReeseM 00:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact creating a category to get around a prohibition of lists that are copyright violations is still just as much a copyright violation. And sneaky ta'boot. --JeffW 05:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if you've followed the afd's for the lists, the copyright violation came in because the lists were simply copied and pasted from whatever (website or magazine, etc..) and then listed in an articles, often including small article commentary. This wouldn't be an issue wouldn't apply to a cat.--Esprit15d 13:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not create the category to "get around" a copyright violation. Let's assume good faith here, please. I don't believe the mere mention of something's placement on a list is a copyright violation. Gamaliel 05:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Recognition on such a list, by no less an authority than Rolling Stone, is inherently encyclopedic and certainly merits a cat. Ombudsman 15:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bhoeble. Postdlf 16:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic and serves as advertising. Hawkestone 20:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The opinions of a handful of journalists on what is a "great album" is wholly unencyclopedic as a cat. In any case, there will be a new list in a few years and some of the entries will have changed; the consequent potential for multiple cats (Rolling Stone list 2003, Rolling Stone list 2008 etc. etc.) demonstrates why this should go. Valiantis 01:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Spartak Moscow footballers to Category:FC Spartak Moscow players edit

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 keep. Syrthiss 12:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category should be renamed to be in line with other "[football club] players" categories. Conscious 06:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Cougars to Category:Cougar women edit

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. —akghetto talk 09:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very least that can be said is that, the application of the term "cougar" for the constituents of this category is vastly less common than for mountain lions or Mercury sedans. -choster 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is not a defining characteristic. As a second choice, rename per nom. Bhoeble 16:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic and subjective. Would those women consider themselves cougars? Especially since cougars aren't just older than their love interests, but have to be richer, retarting a career, maintaining an image etc... Would this include normal people or just celebrities? Also, maintaining this list would be a bona fide nightmare, since relationships (especially of this sort) come and go.--Esprit15d 19:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no rename. For a category to be useful, the category needs to be a common term. This is not. FloNight talk 19:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categories should not be based on little known slang. ReeseM 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a commonly used distinction, regardless slang or not. Mukadderat 18:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete altogether... nonsensical. BD2412 T 01:43, 14 March 2006 (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.

Category:1990s webcomics edit

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 no consensus. Syrthiss 12:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Way too broad and redundant with the general webcomics category. Webcomics currently can only be in 1990s webcomics, or 2000s webcomics - and are typically in the late 1990s/early 2000s group, so this categorisation splits the general category uselessly and fairly meaninglessly down the middle. This CFD also covers Category:2000s webcomics, using the same argument. - Fangz 04:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wikipedia has aspirations of being around a long time (and thus the internet will be around a long time). Setting the infrastructure in place now hurts no one.--Esprit15d 18:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Rename There's no real rhyme or reason about how they're being distributed between 1990s and 2000s. For instance Rogues of Clwyd-Rhan (started 1991) is under 2000s comics, other comics that started in the 1990s are in 1990s... A few are in both... In any case, knowing when a webcomic started is not always the easiest thing to find out, and it's possible many of them are going to end up ambiguous, unless research is done. And only allowing them to be put into categories based on a fact that may not be known is bad policy. In addition, there are ambiguous categories: When did, say, www.girlgeniusonline.com start? 2000, when it was being published on paper, or 2005 when it became a webcomic? (Sure, that one doesn't cause problems with the arbitrary cut-off date, but I'm sure there's others that could.) Instead, I'd suggest "Ongoing" webcomics, and "Ended" Webcomics, as a more natural division. Adam Cuerden 21:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep: Sorry, I forgot to write instructions. This is to be analogous to Category:2000s comics in that I am attempting to list webcomics that updated with new content in the time periods specified. So we have some comics that started in the 90s and ran into the 00s, some that just ran in the 90s and some that have started after 2000. I hope this clears up the intent. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Musical software to Category:Music software edit

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. Syrthiss 12:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software isn't musical as a sound might be considered musical; instead, software used in the production or recording of music usually known as "music software". David Kernow 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a few other subcategories of Category:Music named "Musical ..." that I'm thinking of putting forward for renaming to "Music ...", assuming the above is renamed. David Kernow 12:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Quran to Category:Qur'an edit

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. -- TexasAndroid 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'an is the preferred spelling on Wikipedia (as well as many other parts of the English-speaking world). joturner 01:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who love to run edit

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. -- TexasAndroid 22:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this new category under Category:Wikipedians interested in running, and I thought it was a tad redundant... Chirality 01:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep: The cat was modeled after the similar pattern established for cycling, i.e., Category:Wikipedians_interested_in_bicycling Category:Wikipedians who love to cycle. There is a bit of difference, as some fans can't actually participate, and the alternate referenced also seems to be justified as a separate cat, as is the case for bicycling, pramarily for Wikipedia:WikiProject Running participants. The running boom of the '80s may be long past, but there are similar numbers of runners and cyclists, if not plenty more runners, making it likely that the cats will be useful as the bicycling cats already have become. Ombudsman 01:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Just indented your comment and put colons in the categories) I see your point, with respect to the cycling categories, but I think this CfD should go through the process just to see whether or not other users think it's overcategorization. --Chirality 02:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sloppy name, unencyclopedic category. Bhoeble 12:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cat Interested in running already exists, and this subcat is excessive. Next it'll be Wikipedians who love running on beaches.--Esprit15d 18:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a colon to your category so it this page isn't listed in the Wikipedians interested in running category. --JeffW 22:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or else create Category:Wikipedians who hate to run but do it anyway because they are putting on weight, and Category:Wikipedians who have a love/hate relationship with running, and Category:Wikipedians who run when they are late for the bus but not because they like running per se, etc. etc. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposed. Scranchuse 17:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposed. Alan Liefting 23:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BS. nuff said. __earth (Talk) 02:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Mukadderat 18:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians censored by Islamist editors edit

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 speedy delete. (Actually, it was deleted before the debate even began, as far as I can see. -- TexasAndroid 22:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divisive and inflammatory. This is needlessly uncivil; borderline speedy. Rhobite 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Category:Wikipedians censored by Zionist editors and Category:Wikipedians censored by Hindutva editors as these two were made in response to the Islamist cat. Pepsidrinka 03:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep

You want rid of this already? It's only existed for two hours! Have you read the description? How is this uncivil? This category exists for people on the recieving end of uncivil behavior. Please note: I am refering to Islamist & not Islamic. From the description;

This category is for Wikipedians who feel that they have been censored/bullied by Islamists on Wikipedia regarding valid/fair/worthy additions to articles.

The creation of this category is not a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory or offensive. This category was created by user:Veej soon after reading user:OceanSplash's comments here. Though user:Veej disagrees with user:OceanSplash on so many issues & believes he is generalizing followers of a major world religion, user:OceanSplash does highlight the lack of a support structure for people critical of Islamists. This category should help Wikipedians find support, so they don't feel alone. Wikipedians in this category should definitely not try to foster hate in any way. This is not a directly political category. It is simply a category for Wikipedians who have been victims of censorship/bullying by Islamist editors.

I've been needlessly bullied by Islamist editors. Please see here. So you believe I should be denied support? Why? Veej 02:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel you're being bullied, you should follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process instead of creating divisive categories. No matter what you say, this is obviously a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory. Censorship is a strong word, and I'm certain that you're misusing it. There is no guarantee of free speech on Wikipedia. Complaining about "censorship" is just applying a loaded term -- one which is normally used to describe action by governments -- to a process which is normal here. Rhobite 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You call this category divisive but I don't see how it's more divisive than other categories. The phenomena of categorizing wikipedians, by it's very nature, is bound to be divisive to some extent. So should everything under Category:Wikipedians be deleted?. I'm dissapointed that you'd insinuate that I'm lying when I state that the, "creation of this category is not a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory" rather than explain why you believe the use of this category is inflammatory. By inflammatory, I assume you mean 'tending to excite anger'. So effectively, you believe this category exists purely to anger Islamists rather than to achieve the aims stated in the category description. It's very difficult to argue against you when you refuse to assume good faith because nothing I can say would be satisfactory. You believe that I'm misusing the word 'censored'. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary simply defines it as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable". No mention of action by governments there. Obviously 'censored' is a strong word & here refers to extreme behavior which is why it's correct use. If a wikipedian applied this category to themselves & they hadn't suffered vehement attempts of censorship by Islamist editors, then & only then would it be incorrect use of the word. I'm not insisting on a 'guarantee of free speech on Wikipedia', nor is this category's existence a complaint about censorship. It is simply a category for Wikipedians who have been victims of censorship/bullying by Islamist editors. You're reading far more into this than you need to. Veej 03:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't rely on dictionary definitions to support your point in arguments. The word "censorship" does have an official or governmental connotation which is inappropriate here. Yes, this category does nothing but incite anger. The fact that other users have responded with their own anti-Zionist and anti-Hindu categories confirms this. Maybe you didn't intend for this category to be inflammatory, but that was the result. In a debate over deletion, intent is irrelevant. Nobody's trying to punish you. Rhobite 03:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right about dictionary definitions. They're embarrassingly petty.Veej 04:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 03:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy delete of all three and a round of applause for the nominaters - irrespective of Veej's bona fide intentions, categories with an inflammatory title like this will foster hate. As Rhobite says, there is a appropriate path to take and this is definitely not the right path. Green Giant 03:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

I had hoped that the use of this category could eventually develop into a support network along the same lines of Wikipedia:Esperanza. But obviously differing in that those involved would share similar grievances. This sort of community project can never develop without users finding each other with the use of this category. Also, I believe that it's unfair to lump in my category with User:Siddiqui's two categories. Obviously there are strong parallels between all 3 but they are not the same & should survive or be deleted on their own merits. The motives for their creation are totally different. Islamist, Zionist & Hindutva are different words with different connotations. Veej 03:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per nom. Comparing this with Esperanza is nonsensical; somehow I feel sure that users who feel similarly aggrieved will be, and have been, able to find their way into each other's arms without it, by dint of their vocal participation in debates they are concerned about.--cjllw | TALK 04:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Divisive, damaging, and incites ghettoisation instead of conflict resolution.--Fangz 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete hateful racist AdamJacobMuller 04:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fangz. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I've speedied it, and I'll consider blocking anyone who recreates it. I'm going to speedy the other ones too. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Factions need to squashed on Wikipedia - not validated - in order for it to succeed.--Esprit15d 18:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Speedy Delete for WP:SNOW. The is category is disruptive and maybe WP:POINT. FloNight talk 20:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Feel-Good Stories edit

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. — Mar. 12, '06 [12:22] <freakofnurxture|talk>

has a non-measurable guidelines for inclusion, needless pov categorization.  ALKIVAR™  00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • delete. per nom.--cjllw | TALK 04:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom--Chirality 15:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A nice category, but unfortunately inherently POV. Powers 16:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, inherently pov. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many categories are subjective, such as gross-out comedy films, cat lovers, or humanitarians. Why restrict any categories that discuss emotion and why say we cannot refer to words like humorous or sappy? Sysrpl 00:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a difference between subjectivity and being POV. Powers 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposed. Alan Liefting 23:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently point of view. I could add some stories that I think are "feel-good stories" but others wouldn't. For instance, i don't think the story of "Rudy" is a feel good story...which is my point of view...someone else does...which is his point of view. There is no factual evidence to support either of our points of view....thus....the category is point of view. Batman2005 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional Autistic people to Category:Fictional autistic people edit

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 speedy rename. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 13:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional blind characters to Category:Fictional blind people edit

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 Keep current name. ×Meegs 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is , per Pedsidrinka. FloNight talk 20:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Commonly in wikipedia titles, if "fictional" then "characters". I know even about blind gods. Mukadderat 18:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


Category:Kurdistan edit

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 keep. —akghetto talk 09:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. The fact that Kurdistan is not a country is not really relevant. Look at Category:Disputed_territories. Most of the regions here are not countries but they still have their own category. What's different about Kurdistan? AucamanTalk 18:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Kurdistan is a geographic, as well as a CULTURAL REGION on this planet, therefore it is relevant. There is a need for it, as it has a meaning for all those people who identify themselves as Kurdish. It may not be a country, but that does not make it any less significant.
  • Strong Delete. That's just a seperatist propaganda. --Inanna 19:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Encyclopedia Britannica and other authoritative sources [do not] recognize the entity as a country. I have extensively researched this.Zmmz 23:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This is a geographical area.. There is no reason why we need a category for it, do we have one for each geographicla location in the world?! --Kash 11:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. "Kurdistan" is NOT a country , I don't see a need for such category. --ManiF 11:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Turks tried to delete this for blatantly political reasons, and now the Iranians are having a go. Could all neutrals please take the trouble to vote as this sort of category is vulnerable to inappropriate deletion if the interested parties organise themselves well. Could the closing admin please review the deletion votes and consider whether they represent a cross section of Wikipedians? - There just aren't enough votes on this page for one to be confident that it won't be abused successfully if a naive vote counting approach is followed. Bhoeble 12:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please try to understand the situation before rejecting anything that could be remotelly political. Kurdistan is not a country, it is just a geographical location, a proposed 'country' by a few nationalist Kurds. Instead of jumping to conclusions, atleast give a valid reason for rejecting this suggestion --Kash 12:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be patronising. In my opinion your background actually makes you particularly ill-equipped to judge this issue compared with the average Wikipedian. People from neutral countries are better equipped to understand the issue than people from neighbouring countries which do not have a free press but do have a government which relentlessly promotes a nationalist line on this issue. Bhoeble 16:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant? What government does, does not reflect in it's people. This is the same mistake that terrorists make. Please don't make this mistake again, I see it as a personal attack. --Kash 10:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must be an easy target for propagandists if you believe that propaganda can have no effect on you! Hawkestone 19:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basicaly here is my case:
    • Topic spesific objection to this category (POV concens):
      1. kurdistan (land of the kurds/lands owned by kurds) does not exists. And its borders are vaugely defined. There exists places kurds happen to live, that doesnt mean kurds own the lands. On two countries only they have a level of political control.
      2. For instance in Iraq a kurdistan does not exist at the moment. There was a defacto nation up in the north at the No-fly-zone before the war. After the war the defacto was given a level of official political control in the newly drafted iraqi constitution which hansn't been ratified. Meaning on the next draft it may vanish. Wikipedia is NOT a cristal ball.
      3. We have random provinces of Turkey being tagged under kurdistan. There is no kurdistan in Turkey in the Turkish constitution. There have been many uprisisngs (treated as countries on wikipedia). Screw the Turkish constitution, there is no defacto goverment either.
      4. Same goes for Syria. A kurdistan is not recognised. Kurds do not even have a defacto nation.
    • Topic inspesific concenrs (stuff nothing to do with POV)
      1. Currently we have restourants in Berlin Germany tagged under kurdistan. Really... come on.
      2. We also have {{Kurdistan-stub}} which is identical with {{France-stub}}. Basicaly we are treating Kurdistan as a country on wikipedia. If it is going to be treated like a geo cultural region we do not need the category as an artice can explain it all.
      3. We also have Turkish Kurdistan, Syrian Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan. Lets also have German Kurdistan after all a significant minority exists there too...
      4. Granted fictional countries are ok on wikipedia, I for one have contributed to the United Federation of Planets. We do not however mark provinces of turkey, iraq, unites states, and all nations on earth under Category:United Federation of Planets as after all the UFP was a vast federation of planets in the fictional world of star trek.
    --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Such greatly described argument deserves a merit! Thank you. If these do not satisfy anyone below, I would like to introduce admins to question why this may be, Thanks --Kash 14:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from what I've learned "Category Kurdistan" is not viable. -ZeroTalk 15:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everything is categorised. I do not believe that only countries or planets are categorised. Kurdistan with any definition exists not only in the geography and cultural issues but even in the historical issues. although geographically due to the occupation and invasion of neighboring ethnic groups some regions of it is hard to define but there are many credible and neutral sources to verify whether this region is part of this area. for example credible encyclopdias. Diyako Talk + 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes but if it isnt a country why is it being treated as one? We dont tag New York under north america we tag it under united states.
  • Keep Poland wasn't recognised as a country by its enemies and conquerors in the 19th century, but it was one nonetheless. Choalbaton 16:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But Kurdistan has never been a country and will possibly never be one, its just name created by Kurd nationalists and it is not recognised by any state. The suggestion land and location was never invaded by enemies --Kash 17:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment yes and kurdistan is not like that. It is not invaded, it never existed in the first place (aside from a few revolts). Polland existed for centuries. It was invaded and ceased to be a country. It became a country once again with the fall of the soviet union (IIRC). During the soviet occupation it was a province (IIRC), kurdistan isnt even that.
  • Keep I don't see why catagories cannot be applied to regions, even ill-defined ones. The category is not a subcatagory of cat:Countries so it doesn't imply that this is a country, and it is properly in the subcategory of cat:Disputed territories so I don't see the problem. --JeffW 17:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not used as a navigation aid, instead is used to draw the borders of the proposed country. A restourant in Berlin Germany is in kurdistan according to the cat. --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds like a case of a bad categorization of an article, not a bad category. If a German restaurant doesn't belong in the Kurdistan category, and it sounds like it doesn't, then you should edit it and remove that Category link, not propose that the whole category be removed. --JeffW 05:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Kurdistan seems to be not a real location or governed state, but a nation (like the Serbian nation). Since it is an entity, it can have a cat, but the title and/or classification needs to relect that it is not a greographical location. Also, the articles included here apparently need to be a little more discriminating. Also, the Kurdistan article has POV issues, which contributes to teh confusion here. --Esprit15d 18:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly the problem. Kurdistan is not a country and people are easily fooled by how this category is used/named. It also has no defined borders. --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I don't know a whole lot about this topic, but from what I can see, this debate is really about the titles of the articles (as inferrence by the nominator's recent actions against them), and not against the actual content, which seems to be viable. If that is the case, then the category should stand. --InShaneee 20:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JeffW. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this was previously nominated recently. We have categories for Category:New France, Category:Prussia, Category:Mesopotamia, Category:New England - historic colonies, historic countries, regions, etc. Kurdistan falls in line with these. 132.205.45.110 21:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But current article is not about a historic Kurdistan. Change the article to describe the usage of the term in history (as it is non-existent as of today), and keep the category, that's fine. --levent 21:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The category makes no claim that K-stan is a country, and the cat and the sub-cats are quite well-populated, so it is doing what a category should do. It is difficult to see any reason why anyone should wish to remove it except in the pursuit of POV agendas extraneous to Wikipedia.Staffelde 03:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does though. Categories for regions are never used. See New York, it is not under Category:New England (as it shouldn't) it is under United States. Nav aids when used like this are only used for countries. Cultural regions (kurdistan is one) cannot have defined borders so tagging of provinces is bad practice and thats what this category is used for. --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The category, which is what we are discussing, very carefully doesn't. If there are disputes over some of the articles in it, that is a separate matter. There are loads of of categories for - in the widest sense - "regions" which are not nations, and I see no justification for discriminating against the Kurds.Staffelde 11:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The category provides links for Kurdish inhabited areas and cities and Kurdish historical dynasties which ruled parts of Kurdistan.Heja Helweda 04:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as per comments sv:User:emj emj 17:40 4 March 2006 (CET)
  • Keep It isn't a country in the sense of being an independent state, but neither are Category:Scandinavia or Category:Punjab. Scranchuse 17:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but there are no claims to revive a scandinavia country and unlike kurdistan it has defined borders. --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Country is not God, and this is not only countries which are categorized. So say it clear your movement against this category is your POLITICAL POV! Otherwise Kurdistan has its own definition in its article. Diyako Talk + 22:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look, political pov is the category, Kurdistan is a non existant state. Some people are trying to establish it as a country on wikipedia, this is a breach of wikipedias WP:NOT. Propoganda is not welcome here. Just dont lecture me on political pov. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Same reason as Mani!! --(Aytakin) | Talk 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry. If the Kurds can have it, so must all other ethnicities.--Zereshk 01:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sorry. Yes, they must, and should, since this is an encyclopaedia. If you have political or personal problems with the Kurds, go somewhere else to express them. Staffelde 11:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are here to scare people away you most certainly dont belong here. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you are perfectly well aware, I am pointing out to the other fellow that it's not appropriate to bring personal prejudices onto Wikipedia - and I point the same thing out to you. Doesn't seem scary to me. Staffelde 19:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! This user even does not know what is Kurdistan. Mr/Mrs! Kurdistan Exists!
Diyako Talk + 21:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful category, with plenty of content (9 subcats and 84 articles at time of writing). Tons of other places that are not sovereign states have their own Wikipedia cat. As the very cradle of agriculture, and thus of civilisation, Kurdistan is of fundamental importance in the human story.--Mais oui! 09:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm you almost make it sound as if Kurdistan is a superpower... --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most subcats are useless too...--Cool CatTalk|@ 20:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look all guys, all of these disputes on the Kurdish related articles are boggus. some people hate Kurds. For no good reason instead of clean up tag (which by itself is unnecessary here this Turkish user puts disputed tag!!!!!!!~

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdistan&curid=80777&diff=42353157&oldid=42351983 Diyako Talk + 16:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please do not make global personal attaks. Its not ok either. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Iran has a province called Kurdistan and Iraq has an autonomous Kurdish region which according to Statoids.com is composed of the provinces of Arbil, Dahuk, and Sulaymaniyah with a referendum in 2007 on three more provinces joining. The two regions neighbour each other and there is a large contiguous area in Turkey with a Kurdish majority. The governments of Iran and Iraq regard Kurdistan as a genuine cultural and political region, despite Turkey's lack of recognition of Kurds as a separate ethnic group. Specifically answering Cool Cat's first two objections, there has been an Iraqi Kurdistan since 1970, and the only way it might vanish at the next draft of the constitution is for the Kurdish speaking people to vanish as well. The proposal of a German Kurdistan is a pointless remark which fails to recognise that Turkish Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan and Syrian Kurdistan do not refer to the whole of those countries but a continuous area of Kurdish majorities on the borders between the four countries. Is there a continuous area in Germany where the Kurds form a majority? Green Giant 16:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actualy yes... There are such maps. Should I mark Texas as a red state or Michigan as a blue state, the majority of the votes? --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete USA forces has authority only in Baghdat. By means of that, all Iraq is autonomous region. It is just a matter of time no to call it Kurdihs province. Secondly, republic of Turkey hasn't recognized Kurds as an ethnic gruop of Turkey. Turkish Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan and Syrian Kurdistan, such a st..d sentences. What do you think of this ?German Iranian, Finnish Sweden. It is not a meaningfull reason to keep this article. --hybrid lily 17:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is republic of Turkey?! a new biased country. wikipedia is not the place for propaganda for such countries. Diyako Talk + 17:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does a 'biased country' mean? Propoganda is trying to make Kurdistan look like a country, which is what you are trying to do here --Kash 17:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you dyako? Republic of Turkey, just like the United states is a recognised nation. Marking its provinces with the category in question is bad taste. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you do not know what is categorization. Categorization does not mean that X is a country. Everything can bee categorized. evrything for example books.Diyako Talk + 17:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know what categorisation is. But you guys are trying to fool readers of wikipedia to think Kurdistan is a country by making a category for a 'proposed location' without any borders, which is not recognised by any organisation beside Humanrights watch, which is only concerned about the Kurd people, not the borderds of a 'proposed country' --Kash 17:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what categorization is, marking sovereign states with a proposed state is nothing but pov pushing. Even a restourant in berlin germany is in kurdistan, if the category is kept I am thinking of marking random us states with kurdistan. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nobody talked about an existing country. It's just a category for Christs shake! NikoSilver 17:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really then why is it that the category is only about kurds and might i add overcluttered with sub categories. Why not use a more npov name like "Kurdish inhabited ares" instead of "land opf the kurds" --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There are around 30 million Kurds, with own language, own culture etc. In 1920 Treaty of Sèvres Kurdistan was recognized as a nation state. This category is important and very relevant, even though Kurdistanb not is a state. Bertilvidet 17:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Turkey, in Turkish Türkiye Cumhuriyeti, TC is mostly used by kurdish people, is the official name of Turkey. Secondly, Reoublic of Turkey didn't signed the Treaty of Sèvres, but Ottoman Dynasty. republic of Turkey signed the Treaty of Lozan. This area belongs the Republic of Turkey. There is no 30 million kurds Your suggestion cannot be a reason to keep the article.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Sèvres Treaty irrelevant because it eventually was replaced by the Lausanne Treaty? As the Kurds are not recognized all figures are estimates - but for sure it is the Worlds largest nation without its own state.Bertilvidet 18:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is irrelevant, because of Treaty of Lausanne. but for sure it is the Worlds largest nation without its own state just a propaganda. There are lots of ethnic gruops that say the same. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think so, you should argue for deletion of the Treaty of Sèvres article. I haven't heard of any larger nation without a state, but would like to know if there is. Bertilvidet 21:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - hell, we have Category:Taiwan; political implications (if any - I don't see any) are irrelevant. This category is very useful as it can help readers find all Kurdistan related articles. It's about a place, no one said country! --Latinus 18:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan case is much more different than Kurdistan. Besides, only Kurdish people call this region Kurdistan, because they want to be a free country.
  • Keep, I don't mean to let the Iranian editors down, but Kurdistan is a region, just like Tibet, and we have a Category:Tibet. Besides, "Kurdistan" is on many National Geographic maps, see this for example. Sorry guys, but this isn't really a political matter, but a geographic one. --Khoikhoi 18:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a map of National Geographic. Just look closer. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have the actual map at home. See this map and compare it to other national geographic maps. --Khoikhoi 19:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a frivolous, Kurd-hating nomination. Categories are based on notions that are known and useful, not by any official law. Mukadderat 18:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Weather some people like it or not,Kurdistan is a geographical region and its inhabitants are distinct from their neighbours.Moreover it was recognised as a sovereign state(for a brief period of time) after world war I...so,I do not find any reason why we should delete Category:Kurdistan.as far as the articles related are not contaminated with POV and nationalistic theories (by all sides) it should be definately kept.--Hectorian 18:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you, please, share the differences of Kurds and their neighboors ? As you said it was recognized, because of Treaty of Sèvres. Now, there is no country recognize it.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No,there is no country recognised now.but neither is the Soviet union Category:Soviet Union.both states existed,no matter for how long each of them.and about the differences,they have their own language and culture.these two things make them distinct enough.And afterall it is JUST a category page!as many other category pages...It would be better not to make it a matter of politics!--Hectorian 19:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep of course, useful. Where is the policy requiring that every geographic category needs to be a sovereign state? dab (ᛏ) 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No but the rdictionary definition of kurdistan is "Land of the kurds/lands owned by kurds". Please contrast Scandinavia and Kurdistan. Kurdistan is all about kurds. Region is limited to kurds and kurds only all linked articles is about kurds. Scandinavia however talks about norwegans danes and others. Scandinavia is not abaut "Scands" or "Scandinavians" as such a thing does not exist. Also the sub categories are a bit weak. Category:Kurdistan geography subcategory has only 2 entries. Category:Kurdish language subcategory has only 4 entries. Category:Kurdish culture has 5 subcategories and each subcategory has only one to four articles linked. Category:Kurdish films, only 2 articles. This really is not right. Kurdistan category and its sub categories are mostly about kurdish politics/nationalism not about the geo-cultural-region.--Cool CatTalk|@ 20:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you still look politically at the issue. If in the past in an article (which is on an assassination against some Kurdish leaders) a user wrongly used that caregory it does not mean we should erase whole categorization. You could simply help wikipedia by removing that category link as I did. Opposing whole categorization is really suspecious.
Diyako Talk + 21:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Although there should be a Kurd category, I don't think 'Kurdistan' (Land of Kurds) is the right name for it. The category has obviously been mis-used and it has a dozen sub-categories with only 1 article in them. All of it is done by one User (Diyako) who is also pretty much the only one defending it right now. (No need to mention that he has been going around asking users to vote to keep this on different countries pages (Talk:Israel and Talk:Armenia), etc. All this leads to the suspicion that this is part of one user's pro-seperatist propoganda. --MysticRum 09:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's is just your pure POV anon newcommer user.Diyako Talk + 09:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The place has been known as 'Mezapotamia' for thousand years. I think, Kurdistan is JUST a political propaganda of kurds. Besides, if it was aimed to present info. of kurds, we already have more categories of kurds. We should say Strong delete for it--TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr/Mrs turkish user! Maybe you have not read nothing on Kurdistan but turkish articles. I suggest you have a look on encyclopedias. There is explained what is Kurdistan and at least you will educate yourself something neutral. Diyako Talk + 18:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is not only Turks but also Iranian and other users support to delete it. Additionally, encyclopedias make usually mistakes. There is no such kind of place in the world, but in the mind of kurds as a utopia. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

turkish user! Read and learn. The people of world are not only turks!! Encyclopedia BritannicaEncyclopedia Britannica Diyako Talk + 18:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish User, I haven't said that the world belongs to Turks. I must ask you to stop talking like that. This encyclopedia is not a place where you can make your propaganda. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
turkish user! I make the same propaganda as any neutral encyclopedia do, such as Britannica. propaganda for neutrality and truth. On ther other hand I'm against any political or biased propaganda made by some users.Diyako Talk + 18:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


kurdish nationalist, look at the same encyclopedia for Republic of Turkey, Mezapotamia. Eventually, you will see that there is no such kind of place in the world. I can clearly see that you are aganist only one politic that is aganist kurdistan.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
turkish user! your problem is that you only think of country! what is country?! it is not God! Kurdistan is a historical region and distint from its neighboring regions. This is all. Is it hard to understand?! I don't believe so, especially for those who do not look politically at issues.Diyako Talk + 19:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you, please, show me your historical sources ? any written, any architecture. This place has been called ' Mezopotamya ' for thousand years. Kurds immigrated to region, like Turks. Let's talk about their origin. then we can find how they are different from their neighbors. Is there anything relating with Jews ? You are trying to change the name of it according to your political idea.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 22:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Diyako: Please stop pushing your POV here, let users project their opinions. Thanks. --Kash 00:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: May I suggest that not just one, but both sides, conduct the heated debate somewhere else. Both are pushing POV and repeating arguments already presented here. Bertilvidet 08:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories are navigational tools to help readers find information, not political statements. FloNight talk 10:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, we have Category:Central Asia and Category:Near East both ill-defined regions that have never been a country so-called. We also have Category:Anatolia which is a somewhat defined subset of Turkey. And most pointedly, we also have Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus a region whose independence is recognized only by Turkey. I suppose those who propose deleting Kurdistan because it's not a real country are just as avid that the Northern Cyprus category go as well. Carlossuarez46 23:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Everyone recognises Central Asia, and Near East. 'Northern Cyprus' is recognized by Turkey as you say, Kurdistan (the 'proposed area' not the Iranian\Iraqi province) is not recognised by anyone --Kash 02:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not everyone recognises the Near East as that is a Eurocentric term which some have replaced with terms like Middle East and West Asia. The fact that two relevant countries (Iran and Iraq) recognise the existence of Kurdistan by naming subnational entities as such should not be overshadowed by the Turkish refusal to do likewise. I would also point out that geographically nearby there is a Category:Balochistan despite the fact that this region is not an independent country. The region overlaps three countries but although Pakistan and Iran both recognise the existence of this region by naming the relevant subnational entities (Balochistan Province of Pakistan and Sistan and Baluchistan Province of Iran). Afghanistan does not recognise any part of Balochistan overlapping it's territory so it does not have a similar entity despite external recognition of Balochis living in Afghanistan such as this map at the University of Texas [2]. That doesn't mean it isn't there, it just means the Afghan government doesn't recognise it. So why cannot the same logic be applied to Kurdistan? Green Giant 02:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No country recognizes Central Asia as a political entity; and many would disagree with its extent as a geographical term. Ditto Near East. Kurdistan as a geographic area with ambiguous limits is a term in common parlance except where it is politcally frowned upon. We have a category Category:Confederate States of America which no country formally recognized diplomatically. Carlossuarez46 02:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me correct you, Iran and Iraq do not recognise 'Kurdistan' as described in Kurdistan, as I said, they recognise the other meanings found at Kurdistan_(disambiguation).

Words can be euro-centric, but I am from Middle east where words Middle East and Near East, etc are all used no matter where they originated from. --Kash 11:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Problem is that the category Kurdistan is being used to have everything about Kurds in it, even Kurdish resturants in Germany. Now if Kurdistan means 'Land of Kurds', then we should all agree that the category has been mis-used. It should be deleted or renamed to Kurds or something similar --Kash 11:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kash, you rightly asked Diyako not to push his POV and let users project their opinions on this site. May I suggest you to set a good example. Bertilvidet 16:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should not have been nominated. Hawkestone 19:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respecting and implementing a decision: I believe it is good that have the discussion here, and eventually will end up with a decision that we all will be comitted to respect and help implementing. Let's give vent to all our arguments here, and then agree on respecting the decision that will be taken. If deletion will be decided I urge all to respect that and not attempt to set up a category all the same. If it is decided to keep the category I equally expect from all participants in this debate not to obstruct or sabotage it by conitinously removing articles from the category. Let's see our different approaches to this sensitive issue as an advantadge in order to write well balanced and comprehensive articles. Bertilvidet 07:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This vote means little to me. It is inflated to begin with. No other category vote has this many votes. Also there is a pov infestation. I am not accusing anyone of anything but I find it odd that the majority of the keep votes came from Kurds and Greeks. So no I dont care about this vote at all. I have no reason to keep nonsense like this on wikipedia, I will eventualy get it deleted, watch me. --Cool CatTalk|@ 11:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cool Cat, do you imply that you will obstruct the decision taken here, if it is not in your favour? Please dont attack co-editors for their nationalities, what counts - and what we should relate to - is the arguments advanced. Bertilvidet 10:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The keep votes are from all over the world, from Hong Kong to Denmark and from Australia to the U.S., but I am not sure if there is a single delete vote which isn't from one of the countries which are enemies of the Kurds. Osomec 00:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Muhamed 12:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether everything in the category should stay there is a separate argument, which should be conducted page-by-page. Also, we do have cats about places which aren't on this planet; see Category:Ekumen. Added because I am neither Turk nor Kurd. Septentrionalis 22:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legitimate Category. --Moby 10:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This nom feels a bit like it is in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaife (talk • contribs) diff
  • Keep. Vegaswikian 00:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a useful category. Valiantis 01:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and add a carefully worded intro. — Instantnood 19:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. BD2412 T 01:30, 14 March 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_3&oldid=1110512006"