Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 5



Category:ConAgra Foods, Inc. brands

 * 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 --Kbdank71 13:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Duplicates Category:ConAgra Foods brands; category has been emptied and is ready to be deleted. tregoweth July 5, 2005 21:37 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'll second this, since the cat is empty per CfD description.  Tomer TALK  July 7, 2005 07:25 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dup and empty.  --Kbdank71 7 July 2005 17:33 (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:Hallucinogens

 * 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 --Kbdank71 13:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This category has been supplanted by Category:Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, as part of a WikiProject to organize and expand entries on Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants. There are no current members of this older category, though separate categories may be created for Psychedelic drugs, Dissociative drugs and Deliriants. Whig 5 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)
 * Could be turned into a Template:Categoryredirect to the current name... 132.205.45.110 5 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)
 * No, this is a loss of information. Not every dissociative or delirant is a hallucinogen. JFW | T@lk  6 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)
 * Delete Not used at this time, has article Hallucinogenic drug in description, which redirects to Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants. Can be recreated later, if need arises.  <> Who ? &iquest; ?  7 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Who. And it's empty.  --Kbdank71 7 July 2005 17:34 (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:Anti-Zionism

 * 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 --Kbdank71 14:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a self-contradictory category because the main article that defines this category is itself defined as dealing with Category:Anti-Semitism, yet the anonymous creator of this category (i.e. Category:Anti-Zionism) begins it by listing three Hasidic Judaism articles belonging to Category:Hasidic Judaism, and adds a strong POV diatribe  against modern Zionism which also makes it clear that this is a violation of What Wikipedia is not. This schizophrenic category must be removed ASAP, as it cannot have articles in it that are both sub-categories of Category:Judaism and Category:Anti-Semitism at one and the same time. (This is a complex subject where it's very easy to fall into fallacious self-contradiction and ridiculous illogical consequences.) IZAK 5 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)
 * Delete for the above reasons. Thank you. IZAK 5 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)
 * Keep--Witkacy 5 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not sure I agree with all of Izak's reasons, but this seems like a rather pointless category, especially since Satmar and NK (for example) have very little in common in their anti-Zionism. Why not add Hamas and Islamic Jihad as well? Does anyone think that this category really helps? Mikeage 6 July 2005 09:32 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a confusing category. --68.39.66.54 6 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless category, as per Mikeage. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Shouldn't be a child of Category:Anti-Semitism. Could contain all groups and organisations that disapprove of political zionism. JFW | T@lk  6 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with Mikeage. --Hillel July 7, 2005 01:10 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There's possibly something here, but the subject is (1) too small and (2) too poorly defined to convince me that it's REALLY IMPORTANT to keep it... Tomer TALK  July 7, 2005 07:07 (UTC)
 * Keep as a subcategory of Category:Anti-Semitism. --Lysy (talk) 7 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)
 * Delete a category for Anti-Zionism would be appropriate, but not as a subset of Anti-Semetism. While many Anti-Zionists are also Anti-Semites, it is grossly incorrect to say that all of them are - especially given that the Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l and many other Jewish Sages were opposed to Zionism.--Josiah July 9, 2005 01:03 (UTC)
 * Keep. It can be a subcategory of more than one category.  Some anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, some are religious Jews who think it violates religious laws, some are Arabs who lost their land, some may be motivated by something else that we don't have a category for yet.  Make it a subcat of any other categories where it's appropriate. "Release zee artikul..." etc. (I really need to create a template for that). --Jpbrenna 19:59, 10 July 2005 (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:Anti-Polonism

 * 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 --Kbdank71 14:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

See related present vote to delete the Anti-Polonism article at Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism for full reasoning why this redundant category should not have been created in the first place. IZAK 5 July 2005 09:08 (UTC)

Additional information why this should be deleted: This category seems to assume, for example, that Poland was different to other countries invaded by Nazi Germany. The fact is, Germany invaded and occupied most countries in Europe (and North Africa) yet it was not because of "Anti-Frenchism", or "Anti-Danishism" or "Anti-Greekism" etc etc etc, rather, these were all acts of war, and Poland was no different as far as the Poles were concerned. In the case of the Jews it's a different story since Hitler wanted to carry out his "final solution" against them as Jews and not as Poles, or Frenchmen, Danes, or Greeks etc etc etc, thus to have Category:Holocaust as a sub-category of a pseudo-category such as this is both a fallacy of logic and revisionism and distortion of history. Furthermore a close look at the articles in this category reveals that basically 50% of them are Nazi-related articles and 50% are Communist-era related making it very clear that whoever placed them into this category wants to make the Poles appear as poor "victims" and to whitewash Polish co-operation with both its German and Russian occupiers, no different to countries such as Hungary, Romania, Italy, Vichy France, Norway, and others that basically accepted the German occupation and have historically never classed themselves as "victims" of "Anti-Polinism", or "Anti-Hungarianism", or "Anti-Frenchism" etc etc etc. Similarly, when Poland once ruled Lithuania and large chunks of Russia and Ukraine it was also not guilty of "Anti-Russianism" or "Anti-Lithuanism" because all this was considered part of the normal ebb and tide of history with its usual wars and subsequent times of peace. This category should be deleted because it is an insult to human intelligence. IZAK 6 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. IZAK 5 July 2005 09:08 (UTC)
 * Keep. Also, I find this cfd process really disgusting. The article on Anti-Polonism was listed on vfd twice in a row AFAIR, and it's still visible that the community is against its deletion. And now IZAK is listing its category for deletion, for no apparent reason. Halibutt July 5, 2005 10:19 (UTC)
 * Halibutt: The reasons have now been explicitly listed. Read them. Thanks. IZAK 6 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)
 * Keep--Witkacy 5 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
 * Do with this whatever is done with the article in question. Delete if deleted, keep if not, rename if renamed.  -Sean Curtin July 6, 2005 03:22 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 06:03 (UTC)
 * Keep, assuming the article in question is retained as well (which is likely as most votes atm are to keep it as well). IZAK, your arguments make little sense, please don't mix anti-Polonism with anti-Semitism. I would think you, a frequent editor of Holocaust-related articles, would know that Nazi treatment of Slavs was not equal to their treatment of 'westerners' - you may want to read up on Lebensraum and Generalplan Ost, but this is OT for this discussion. Feel free to ask me on my talk page for more details on that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 6 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)
 * Keep --SylwiaS 7 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)
 * Keep per Votes_for_deletion/Anti-Polonism. Karol July 7, 2005 06:15 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only is this a fuzzily defined neologism, it's an attempt to lend credibility to the very bad article Anti-Polonism, its purported "lead". I have no doubt that there is a widespread victimization notion of "Anti-Polonism" in Poland, and I simultaneously have no doubt that it's the result of a deliberate effort on the part of the Polish educational system to instill the idea that Anti-Polonism is a phenomenon on par with Anti-Semitism.  The only rationale for this attempted equivalence is to minimize the eggregious anti-Semitic actions of the Polish people and their successive governments from the mid-1600s on, by saying "yeah, well we were victims too!"  Except in the minds of those poor souls brainwashed by the Polish educational system, this concept does not exist, nor should a category that caters to this delusion.  Tomer TALK  July 7, 2005 07:05 (UTC)
 * Delete Reguardless of the article on Vfd, this category does exude POV. As stated by nominator, Hitler was out to get Jews, as even Polish people were allowed to keep wealth, assuming they weren't Jewish.  Also, articles beneath this cat are highly suspect, such as You forgot Poland, POV stating that Bush is anti-Polish for mentioning them last, or even having a memory lapse?? Some of the other articles, do not even show real anti-Polish bias; Master race for example, doesnt even mention Polish peoples, but very clearly states what they stood for/against.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  7 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)
 * Then you should rather discuss the articles being or not in this category, and not the category itself. Halibutt
 * "POV stating that Bush is anti-Polish for mentioning them last"
 * hmm?...
 * Master race
 * see: Nur für Deutsche, Untermensch, Lebensborn etc...
 * "Hitler was out to get Jews, as even Polish people were allowed to keep wealth, assuming they weren't Jewish".
 * "I have issued the command – and I'll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad – that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my Totenkopf Units in readiness – for the present only in the East – with orders to them to send to death, mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish race and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" Adolf Hitler
 * "All Poles will disappear from the world.... It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles." Heinrich Himmler
 * see also: http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/poland.htm --Witkacy 7 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)
 * Comment I appologize for missing some vital points in history, this however, does not change my stance on the POV of the category. What you just described is already categorized under any of the existing Nazi categories. If this category was focussed more on history and not POV then why isn't World War II atrocities in Poland included. I agree, that mis-categorized articles are not a category issue, but this category is full of articles that are POV toward the subject. Making the category suspect in itself.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  9 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)


 * If this category was focussed more on history and not POV then why isn't World War II atrocities in Poland included.
 * someone forgot to add it :)--Witkacy 9 July 2005 02:06 (UTC)


 * Keep -- some of the above reasoning to get rid of this category are perfect examples that Anti-Polonism is well and kicking. --Ttyre 7 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)
 * Ttyre: Too bad you can't face the truth and still need to "blame the Jews" for all your troubles. Unlike some people, Jews do not generally go about blaming other people for their troubles, but they try to carry on with life and don't make a hobby out of distorting a history that doesn't flatter them. Do you know that Judaism even has a "holiday" that reminds the Jews themselves of their own faults, it's called Ninth (of the Hebrew month) of Av that teaches that it was the Jews' personal sins that brought about their own doom (this does not let the gentiles off the hook either). So why not learn that attitude instead of being a cry-baby. IZAK 7 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)
 * IZAK, perhaps you hadn't noticed, but this category and related article are not about Jews. As to your recent addition of arguments - too bad most of them have nothing to do with the category or the article. Halibutt
 * Delete. I'm agreeing with Who on this one.  --Kbdank71 7 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep.  The only reason my great-grandfather's aunt Fuschie got out of Poland, where she was travelling on a business trip involving her travel agency on Sept. 1, 1939, was that she had an American passport. She was treated very well by the Germans who examined her documents, and politely asked to go back to America and tell them how well Germans treat Americans.  However, she saw some things that made her think that the German regime of that time did not treat non-American passport-bearing Poles very well.  "Anti-Polonism" sounds like a very good description of it.  My father has visited our relatives in Ireland, and I have visited maternal relatives in Greece.  No one has visited or heard from anyone on the Polish side of my family in Poland for 65 years.  In fact, it may very well be that Messrs. Hitler & Stalin and their cohorts completely "liquidated" my kinfolk.   This doesn't deserve a category???
 * Release zee artikul. Shoot zee deletioniste. (Adapted from a line spoken by "Colonel Hessler" in the Battle of the Bulge - ironic that I'm using that quote here, but it expresses my sentiments very well)--Jpbrenna 06:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Nazi disdain of and incitement against the Poles is well-documented. The Nazis, in fact, held pretty much everyone but themselves in disdain.  This is not evidence of some pervading phenomenon of "Anti-polonism" which requires not only its own article, but its own category, it's a subject of Nazi-era history, and should be discussed at Nazism or something.  Not your boring true family story, I don't mean, but I'm assuming you already know that... Tomer TALK  16:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tomer, please, show me another country, which citizens would be treated as bad as Poles. Except of Jews of course, there is no question that the situation of Jews was the worst. --SylwiaS 17:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sylwia, I did not imply that any other country was treated worse (or even as badly) by the Nazis. What I did was say that (a) it doesn't qualify as a category (to qualify as a legitimate category, generally it should have 60 articles in it, and the vast majority already there deal with the Nazi occupation, not with actual "Anti-Polonism", but with attrocities carried out by the Nazis against Polish citizens, many of whom, as it happens, even in those articles, were killed because they were Jews specifically, not simply because they were Poles) and (b) it's a neologism meant specifically to lend legitimacy to a non-existent phenomenon.  A subcategory of  or of  is far more appropriate a place for articles related to the Nazi views of Poles and the Nazi treatment of Poles during the occupation.  With all due respect to Jpbrenna and her kinfolk's possible annihilation at the hands of the irredeemably and unspeakably evil Nazis, "No.  It does not deserve a category."  This is well handled by already extant categories, and the one in question doesn't deal with it, it makes something else up entirely, and says "See?  this is yet another example!"  Tomer TALK  17:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explanation. I think we deal here with two problems, first to keep the article, second how to divide many different topics. I believe the article will be rewritten, as soon as the voting ends. Please, see my other answers on the other voting page. --SylwiaS 18:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where is there a policy/guideline that sais 'Category should have at least 60 articles'? I know scores of smaller ones. Not to mention it would eliminate categories like 'Solar system planets', 'Earth continents', 'European countries', etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Jpbrenna, thank you for sharing your story. Actually the differences in treatment of Poles with Polish passports and e.g. Canadian passports still happen today. I really don't understand, why we should condemn one prejudices and accept the others. --SylwiaS 16:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This observation makes it germane to or  .  Tomer TALK  17:19, July 10, 2005 (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.