Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 19

Jose_Maria_Casas_"two-" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (deleted history)

There`s people from the same city in this encyclopedia that doesn`t had go out of the town with what they do, and this artists is more know than them.. delete all of them or let him in Galatlanticosur 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Captain Stabbin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

- I believe the Captain should be re-put, for the reasons i stated on the talk page of the article. I am not from a porn company, i merely tried to add an informative article on the subject of a porn start who is notable amongst young men, particularly college students. The Captain is notable for these reasons, and the article therefore conforms to wiki policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captainstabbin (talk • contribs).

• Which part of WP:PORNBIO does he fulfill? Also, note that autobiographies are discouraged. If you're not him, you should pick another name. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: There is no claim whatever, no reference, to indicate "fame." This is an Internet porn star? It looks like a school boy prank page. It also looks like the worst form of misogyny, but that's irrelevant. Vanity, A7: entirely appropriate delete. Geogre 10:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 06:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and salting, valid A7 that turned into a valid G11. --Coredesat 07:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and salting, absolutely unambiguously valid deletion. And I think we should burn the sectors of disk that it originally sat on, as well, just to be on the safe side. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and salting, valid deletion of student prank garbage, valid prevention of recreation of garbage. Proto::► 10:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion student prank, prevent from re-creation. --SunStar Net^talk 13:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Muslim women (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (CfD)

With sorrow I see this category suddenly deleted. The deletion discussion shows total lack of understanding what part of society Muslim women are. Even the sole person who voted to keep shows lack of unrerstanding by writing "It was created to break the Muslim category in half". This category "breaks in half" in the same was as Category:Female bishops or category:Women in space break the larger ones in half. The fact is that the visibility of women in Muslim society has been so low that notable Muslim women are notable twice, and they most surely deserve a separate category.

Therefore I would respectfully ask to restore this category. Mukadderat 06:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Half the world's muslims are women. Far less than half of bishops or astronauts are. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  Though, it's possible that much less than half the notable Muslim population are women. -- Renesis (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Mukadderat wrote : "The fact is that the visibility of women in Muslim society has been so low that notable Muslim women are notable twice, and they most surely deserve a separate category." - couldn't this be argued for most societies throughout history? Bwithh 23:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And your point is...? We have the whole category:Women for various subcategories of women. Of all, Category:Muslim women suddenly gets deleted. Looks like a strime of Islamophobia to me. `'mikkanarxi 22:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

    • I'm making the broadest possible feminist point to query the reasoning that this is a "special case" and asking whether the people who want to overturn this decision are going to make a general case for all women categories. You shouldn't toss around unsubstantiated accusations of racism. Bwithh 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Do we have Category:Catholic women? No. We have Category:Roman Catholic nuns, because nuns are different than monks in ways other than gender. But Catholic women are no different than Catholic men, except for in gender, so we have just Category:Catholics. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Also no Category:Hindu women, Category:Jewish women/Category:Orthodox Jewish women, Category:Confucian women etc etc Bwithh 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
        • This is not an argument. We don't have category:Female speleologists but have category:Women in space. Categories are introduced whenever one needs them. New categories are introduced every day. `'mikkanarxi 03:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
          • You'll notice that I haven't !voted either way yet. I'm trying to clarify what people are trying to achieve here, as I point out in my question above. In any case, your comparison is not quite fitting - there are plenty of categories for women occupations, we were pointing out the lack of categories for specific women by religion Bwithh 23:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I think my colleague points out that here we don't have rules to apply some formal precedents here. We are using common sense. Wikipedia itself is one big precedent. And every new split of categories was a precedent. I understand deletion of category:Bald people. It is a rather superficial trait. But religion and gender are substantial traits. I understand that we are speaking cultural differences here and I undertand that "notable Catholic women" is nothing special today. I assure you, socially notable Muslim women is quite a notable category. Please don't forget that "Muslim" is not only a superficial religious distinction. It is also a cultural distinction, and you cannot categorize "Western world" and "Islamic world" in exactly the same way Mukadderat 05:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
              • "notable Catholic women" is nothing special today" - that's a big vague generalization and who said anything about Wikipedia being only about "today"? And good grief, what did I say to give you the impression that I think religious or gender categories are "superficial" or that Islam has nothing to do with culture? I didn't even mention the "Western world", and specifically mentioned non-Western examples too (Hindu/Confucian). Bwithh 21:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Looking at the log, I see "21:39, 19 December 2006 Cyde deleted "Category:Muslim women" (Robot: Category was disbanded)" In fact, I see lots of this "Robot" thing. Can someone ask Cyde what this means? - brenneman 07:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why it matters, there was a CfD. -Amarkov <sup>blah</sup><sub>edits</sub> 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It means they used an automated program (referred to as a robot) to remove the category from all the pages. Koweja 00:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, that would be an edit to the pages; this is a deletion summary that looks, on the face of it, as though it's being done by a bot. Which is utterly contrary to community consensus, as some recent request for adminstratorships have shown. There are circa 800 deletions from the category namespace in the last six days with the "Robot:" edit summary, plus some from the user namespace that says "(Robot - Testing deletion throttle.)". - brenneman 01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Restore unless arguments presented more convincing than "women are half of all muslim". `'mikkanarxi 22:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, looks fine. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Far less than half of the notable Muslims on wiki are women. The reasons given to delete this and Category:Hindu women are weak and completely go against precedent. We DO split up some categories by gender. This should be one of those cases. --- RockMFR 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I'm not being persuaded by the arguments for overturning this Bwithh 21:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Categorization by gender already exits. Categories should not be deleted by bots. Given that Muslim women have a much harder time than Christian women or Jewish women making their voices heard, all the more reson for keeping this category. Denni ^talk 19:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse valid close following precedent of Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_2#Category:Hindu_women. Tim! 10:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)