Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< April 18
April 20 >

April 19

Category:Fictional women aviators

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Another CensoredScribe sock category, populated by CS socks. I do not believe this cross-categorization to be defining or particularly commented on by RS's. Half the list are not "aviators" per se but fly spaceships. It's simply something they do, rather than something they are generally known explicitly for. -- ferret (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note, category was being moved repeatedly during this CfD, it is now at Category:Fictional female aviators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which was the original name. -- ferret (talk)
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:YouTube sponsors

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining trait. That a company advertises and sponsors content creators on YouTube is irrelevant and not covered by reliable secondary sources. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2023 (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:Country subdivision templates by subdivision type

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: rename to
(non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:C2C parallel to Category:Types of administrative division
.
This a compound neologism by banned User:Tobias Conradi, who used 150+ sockpuppets over 5+ years to spam this all over wikipedia, one of the worst cases ever seen. One of the sockpuppets was User:Country subdivision. Before coming here, he'd been banned at the German wikipedia. These were all supposed to be fixed (and many articles were simply deleted), but sadly others linger a decade later. It is so easy to mass create categories, and so much harder to fix them.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy There's already been a clear consensus for this name recently in CFD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2023 (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:Alumni of the Special military school of Saint-Cyr

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: empty duplicate category Robby (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2023 (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:Officers of the Legion of Honour

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 to
(non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: empty duplicate category Robby (talk) 14:58 19. April 2023 (UTC)
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:Liberal Moderate politicians

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: A category of this nature including many BLPs is quite controversial because:
a) The liberal party don't have formal factions, therefore names are arbitrarily added to the category, in many cases, using
WP:OR
.
b) Many MPs that are already listed in the category don't have any evidence of being 'Liberal moderate Politicians'
––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 14:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deleting This category is obvious nonsense, there's no such thing as a "Liberal Moderate" lol...just joking...however, this does illustrate my point: these positions are completely subjective, some people think the Greens are to the left of Lenin, most people have a more reasonable view, some think the LNP are to the right of Hitler, but most people take a more reasonable view...it's all subjective opinion - these factions should only be included if there is widespread usage in the media, or formal factions like Labor has. Otherwise its just one editors OR and opinion. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete per nomination and Tambor de Tocino. --Bduke (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (leaning to retain). Whether a faction is formalised in any particular manner is not relevant to whether it exists, and therefore to whether it is a significant topic deserving of either a WP article or a WP category. The factions in the LNP are more fluid than those in the ALP (see eg. van Onselen's 2011 essay in the Monthly), but there are real groupings, recognised by both participants and observers, and able to be researched and documented, as they are by Massola but also by others (eg Hawker's 2005 paper in Australian Quarterly). I do not understand the claim regarding OR - the National Right article has an OR template on it, but most of the content is cited. The fact that Massola himself did original research, is not relevant to whether the WP article is OR - it is not, even if it needs improvement. Our concern as editors I think is whether there is a body of knowledge attributable to reliable sources that has sufficient significance to be written about in WP and, in relation to the category, whether there are reliable sources that link a group of articles to a category in a consistent way. I don't doubt that some of the MPs placed in this (or a sister) category don't see themselves in that way, or do not use the label - but our test is whether reliable sources do so, and whether it is meaningful information. I would suggest that they do, and it is. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the category makes membership sound much more fixed and definite than it really is, whereas in the few cases where we have a source, it is a single journalist's assessment, and not a self-identification. StAnselm (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP:CIRCULAR — the only source for this term seems to be en.wikipedia. The purported main article Moderates (Liberal Party of Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is disputed, and doesn't match this name.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2023 (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:Liberal Centre-Right politicians

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: A category of this nature including many BLPs is quite controversial because:
a) The liberal party don't have formal factions, therefore names are arbitrarily added to the category, in many cases, using
WP:OR
.
b) Many MPs that are already listed in the category don't have any evidence of being 'Liberal Centre-Right Politicians'
––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 14:38, 19 April 2023 (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:Fictional traceurs and freerunners

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Generally non-defining trait. Originally created by a CensoredScribe sock, and mostly populated by subsequent socks. There are some characters were this is a bit of a trait, such as Faith Connors which was a game essentially focused on parkour, but for most of these it's unsourced and not mentioned at all in their articles. -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2023 (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:Fictional left-handed character

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining trait, and most entries have been unsourced. Category created by and populated by CensoredScribe sockpuppets. -- ferret (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2023 (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:Wadi Jib

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
Eponymous category for a topic without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant an eponymous category. As always, everything that exists does not always get its own eponymous category just to contain itself -- but the only thing filed here is the eponym. Bearcat (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2023 (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:Ex-Jews

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Was created during the course of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_8#Category:Converts_from_Judaism as a parent of the category that was nominated. There was some controversy about what to do with this category, but the title is inconsistent with its siblings in Category:People by former religion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:54, 19 April 2023 (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:Disestablishments in the Dutch Empire by year

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 all as nominated. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After closing a recent CfD about a related category tree, it turns out that all of the year-level categories in
WP:SMALLCAT, except for Category:1942 disestablishments in the Dutch East Indies. Some of the more recent ones can be merged into a decade category or the corresponding territory, but some of those categories would themselves be too small if the year categories are merged. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Marcocapelle: Hmm, it seems like disestablishments would always be smaller since everything starts but not everything stops (e.g. when existing populated places were founded). Does it aid navigation to tie them together? - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RevelationDirect: well, when you are interested in reading all what happened in a certain year, then you will no longer find the disestablishments in there after this merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I was thinking a reader at the article level some might be years and others decade at the bottom anyway. Appreciate your different perspective from someone navigating at the category level. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with regards to the Dutch East Indies ones. I would say some of them do have room for growth because the coverage of historical Dutch colonial topics and/or Indonesian history is still quite poor on EN Wiki. There are political parties, newspapers with large circulations, and other historical business types which only have very partial coverage so far and yet which would be historically notable. Many of these have years of founding and closing down. Regarding the Antilles one I don't know much and don't have much of an opinion. I think there we're talking about colonies with quite small populations and not the millions, right? Dan Carkner (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now with no objection to recreation if they ever grow to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who created some of these when I created an article and found that year was missing, I do not object to this, although I suspect if someone in the future was not aware of this discussion they may go ahead and do as I did regardless. But if it tidies the surplus of small categories here I understand the logic behind doing so. Dan Carkner (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Often times the (dis)establishment category is the only cat/article in YYYY in country. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:18, 12 May 2023 (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:Society of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

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: procedural close.
(non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: More precise and neutral. Skovl (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a dispute that concerns factual matters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:38, 19 April 2023 (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.

Wildfires in North America by year

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, apart from the US subcategories (which are not nominated) these categories mostly contain 0-3 articles. Also note that there aren't any other wildfires by year and continent categories. A dual merge is not needed, all articles are about Canada and are already in Category:21st-century wildfires in Canada and in a "year disasters in Canada" category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2023 (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:Duologies

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: A "duology" is not actually a dictionary term, merely a neologism used mostly in genre fiction to describe a series of two works. Even if it were a word, there is no evidence that the majority of these "series of two" works are bona fide "duologies" in the same way that trilogies are, i.e. a conceived as such from inception, rather than merely being a film with a sequel, etc. See also the two previous deletion discussions on the article here and here. --woodensuperman 08:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 5#Category:Film series by number of entries. So we should be purging all the other numbered categories too Category:Trilogies, etc. --woodensuperman 09:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Further to below, I have started purging film series per previous discussions Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 5#Category:Film series by number of entries and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 21#Film trilogies. I don't think there will be much left in any of these series categories. --woodensuperman 14:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duology isn't a neologism at all, it was in use in the 19th c. already to refer to e.g. the Iliad and Odyssea[1][2], or to pairs of musical compositions[3]. Being infrequently or rarely used doesn't make something a neologism.
    Fram (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
However, not being in the dictionary does make it a neologism. --woodensuperman 10:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No that doesn't make any sense. Neologism is a new word. If the word exists for a long time, it is by definition not a neologism. Assuming words not in the dictionary are neologisms makes no sense. It assumes that the dictionary is a compendium of all words that ever existed, which is patently false. Different dictionaries even lists how many words each contains, and have differing amounts and different word lists, with dictionaries even dropping words to keep their compact form. It would be like saying that any topic not already in Wikipedia is a topic that did not exist before Wikipedias was created, which is also a false statement. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a serial form of neologism, i.e. people keep coinging it but it never receives/d any traction. In any case we're digressing. Whatever you want to call it, the word isn't a dictionary defined word so we should not be using it here or anywhere else in our articles. --woodensuperman 11:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category does not contain any article in which a pair of works is discussed as a duology. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as most of the entries are just films with sequels. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:57, 25 April 2023 (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:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:OCEGRS
: triple intersection of occupation and nationality and descent is not defining.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nothing defining about this intersection. The merge target is sufficient to convey the ancestry notion, if that is defining. Place Clichy (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2023 (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:Canadian people by occupation and ethnic or national origin

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 and merge.
(non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:OCEGRS
: triple intersection of occupation and nationality and descent is not defining.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' nationality. Perhaps gangsters of Italian/Sicilian descent are involved in the mafia, but if so they should be in a mafia category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge per nom and Marcocapelle. Organized crime is one of the few areas where ethnicity of the groups is actually defining, but that does not necessarily involve descent. In the US, some Irishmen and Jews acquired fame in the otherwise Sicilian-led mafia. Place Clichy (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2023 (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:Liberal National Right politicians

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: A category of this nature including many BLPs is quite controversial because:
a) The liberal party don't have formal factions, therefore names are arbitrarily added to the category, in many cases, using
WP:OR
.
b) Many MPs that are already listed in the category don't have any evidence of being 'Liberal National Right Politicians'
––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 05:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete I'm a keen observer of Australian politics, and this is pretty obvious partisan sledging. Never heard a term resembling anything like a "Liberal National Right politician" used in mainstream reportage.
Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you mean by "partisan sledging"? These factions or groupings are periodically discussed in relation to the internal dynamics of LNP governments/oppositions, just as Labor's factions are periodically discussed in the context of the dynamics of Labor governments/oppositions. What is partisan? and what is sledging here? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. StAnselm (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (leaning to retain). Repeating my comment from category deletion discussion above: Whether a faction is formalised in any particular manner is not relevant to whether it exists, and therefore to whether it is a significant topic deserving of either a WP article or a WP category. The factions in the LNP are more fluid than those in the ALP (see eg. van Onselen's 2011 essay in the Monthly), but there are real groupings, recognised by both participants and observers, and able to be researched and documented, as they are by Massola but also by others (eg Hawker's 2005 paper in Australian Quarterly). I do not understand the claim regarding OR - the National Right article has an OR template on it, but most of the content is cited. The fact that Massola himself did original research, is not relevant to whether the WP article is OR - it is not, even if it needs improvement. Our concern as editors I think is whether there is a body of knowledge attributable to reliable sources that has sufficient significance to be written about in WP and, in relation to the category, whether there are reliable sources that link a group of articles to a category in a consistent way. I don't doubt that some of the MPs placed in this (or a sister) category don't see themselves in that way, or do not use the label - but our test is whether reliable sources do so, and whether it is meaningful information. I would suggest that they do, and it is. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Some editors seem to misunderstand what a faction is and how we can categorise politicians. The National Right is a real faction, even though it isn't formally organised, and we have solid sourcing for some politicans who have identified with it. The article is dodgy and should be deleted, but the category isn't and shouldn't be. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the National Right (Liberal Party of Australia) article? Because I don't think we can have a category like this without an article to support it. StAnselm (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a proposal to delete any wikipedia article but rather a category that has become an OR magnet and has no evidence of being defining for most politicians in it. (t · c) buidhe 08:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understand, but the claim about OR also lacks substantiation and is not being addressed on the talk pages, which surely would be the first step. An editor recently removed the list of names from the article, claiming OR, yet there was a citation for that list, which does indeed contain the names in the article. The OR claim itself there is problematic. I also don't really understand the motivation of editors in this - given that there are references, why is there such a drive to avoid this topic being covered? Just because LNP factions are organised differently and more loosely than Labor factions, doesn't mean they do not exist. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cited article contained some of the names in the list, but not most of them. StAnselm (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2023 (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/2023_April_19&oldid=1160149110"