Category:Recipients of the Close Combat Clasp[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. – FayenaticLondon 16:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Does not meet WP:CATDEF as none of the subjects are notable for having received this decoration. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a member of the military of Nazi Germany seems pretty defining, getting this cursory award for being in 15+, 25+, or 50+ fights seems pretty arbitrary. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This award is not defining to its recipients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2017 (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:Recipients of the Honour Roll Clasp of the Army[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. – FayenaticLondon 16:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Does not meet WP:CATDEF, being a category for an obscure decoration. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Combine Nomination The outcome of this category should match the outcome above, whether I agree with that or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2017 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The Football League was renamed the English Football League (EFL) in 2016. Bbb2007 (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible oppose. The head article remains at English Football League, and EFL is massively ambiguous: see the lengthy dab page at EFL, where the first line says EFL most commonly refers to English as a Foreign Language, see English as a Foreign or Second Language. There would be zero benefit to navigation from replacing a clear, plain English title with an obscure and ambiguous acronym. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: I checked a few of the categories, and none of them have been taagged. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as contrary to C2D. Pppery 18:33, 23 February 2017 (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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 16:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, both this category and its parent category are very sparsely populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The only way abbots are currently sub-divided is by religion, so this is an unneeded extra layer of categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2017 (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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 16:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge, they have the same scope. They are not part of an established tree, other Soviet Socialist Republics don't have this distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- to align with the other republics. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per nom. Kierzek (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure, since we can have "History of foo subdivision" categories in case the "foo subdivision" category is well populated (with history, geography, demographics, etc topics). GreyShark (dibra) 07:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the end everything about a former country is history, but it's true that sometimes history by topic (e.g. geographic history) of a former country gets its own category. That happens mostly with long-lasting big former countries, not with former subdivions like nominated here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (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:Military personnel referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht[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. – FayenaticLondon 23:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category, with the "mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht" (Wehrmacht Report) often being cited to the collection the reports themselves. Does not meet WP:CATDEF, being an obscure and debatable award.
Previous discussion in 2014 closed as no consensus. Since then, several discussions on the relevance of the Wehrmachtbericht Report have taken place, for example, London Gazette vs Wehrmachtbericht, with the consensus being that the reports were unreliable propaganda. The transcripts have subsequently been removed from the articles.
The category itself is likewise not useful as none of the subjects are notable for having been mentioned in the report. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Kierzek (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The category is useful in identifying how and why the the Wehrmachtbericht was used. it is helpful to researchers in identifying the type of mentions. The Federal Archives of Germany, represented by Erich Murawski, have published a list of all 1,500+ people referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht. We have Categories that reference Dictionary of National Biography. We have categories that relate to sources, such as Category:Princeton University Press books .... I don't see the point in deleting it. Furthermore, deletion does not maintain a neutral point of view. Finally, (for now), the Wehrmachtbericht was an important information sources during WWII for the German population, at least for the military portion. We may not like what it said, we may not agree with what it said (today), but historically, it was said. We also cite other sources (1911 Britannica, for example) as categories auntieruth(talk) 15:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would a list article address your concerns. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a case of WP:NONDEF. It was meant and is considered to be a military award of Nazi Germany, but is not important enough to create notability. It is by no means comparable to a biographical dictionary or even an academic publication. And this is not a category that relates to the Wehrmachtbericht as a source. Such a category would have to include contributors and editors. It would most likely be a subcategory of Category:Nazi propagandists and worthwhile discussing. The category under review, however, is not of that kind, and deletion has nothing to do with neutrality, but a lot with WP:OVERCAT. I don't know of a Category:People referenced in Princeton University books, because that would be a non-defining characteristic. Any researcher who intends to identify "the type of mentions" would be better advised to turn to the source itself, which has been edited and published with an index.--Assayer (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial; where someone is mentioned is hardly notable except in the rarest circumstances (such as the Bible). I don't think that the German war reports merit such rarity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above And I would strongly object to removing mention of this source in the articles, or in removing the transcripts. auntieruth(talk) 16:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Duplicate !vote struck. Pppery 15:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defining, a reference her seems equivalent to WP:PERFCAT. Open to a list RevelationDirect (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a non-notable list as it would be sourced almost exclusively to a single, primary source. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2017 (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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category appears to be a product of original research as the article one would expect to accompany the category (Uncensored Japanese pornography) does not exist. The topic in not covered in the article Pornography in Japan either. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've collected 21 actress in the category, that should be enough. Took me several hours, thank you for stressing me. --Gstree (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as BLP violation; delete per nom's argument above.. First of all, in virtually every case, the relevant claim is either unsourced or unreliably. Second, as the linked article points out, making such films/videos violates Japanese laws, so the category effectively accuses those listed of participating in a criminal enterprise. Third (going to regular deletion), as the nominator accurately points out, this is not a defining category, since it omits Japanese performers who make such videos released in other markets and non-Japanese performers who make such videos for the Japanese market. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) There are tons of uncensored Japanese porn out there, in fact it is more common than not on say pornhub.com. It should be no problem to add sources for each title but that should not be more necessary than for censored porn. 2) It is legal for them to sell uncensored films internationally. --Gstree (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Kierzek (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to make the observation that the topic of uncensored Japanese pornography is indeed notable. The topic is covered (but in insufficient detail) at Pornography in Japan#Censorship laws and Censorship_in_Japan#Pornography. It has recently received coverage in an ongoing series by the Asahi Shimbun about the problem of women being coerced into the pornography industry. The president and other management from one of the biggest companies have recently been arrested for providing uncensored material via foreign-based websites. The interpretation of the law is not a simple task though, and it is only recently that they made a mistake which allowed the police to pounce. Another issue raised as part of Asahi's reporting is women being tricked into appearing in uncensored films, believing they were to be censored. I will track down the sources for all of this when I can. The delete votes, particularly by The Big Bad Wolfowitz, do raise valid concerns with listing specific people within such a category. I would just like to make the preliminary note that the topic itself should not be dismissed due to the current lack of explanation about the significance in our articles. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, expansion of the sections Pornography in Japan#Censorship laws and Censorship_in_Japan#Pornography would be useful. It does not, however, change my view on the category itself; it's still based on OR and is non-defining. For the category to be sustainable we need reliable secondary sources that consistently describe the subjects in this way. This material within the articles is often cited to the film titles themselves, which I believe to be a classic definition of OR. Please see WP:CATDEF:
A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having...
Comment/Question is anyone notable for this rather than just being an actor appearing in pornography generally? We don't tend to categorize actors by the subgenres in which they appear. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this would still be OR, BLP violations and a list that lacks stand-alone notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, from what I've read in the articles it seems that the answer to Carlossuarez46' question is negative, they are just pornography actors in general, not acting specifically in uncensored. So this can't be defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2017 (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.
