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: no consensus. I cannot see this one way or the other here. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Create or recreate:

• Category:16th-century Scottish politicians
• Category:17th-century Scottish politicians
• Category:16th-century Irish politicians
• Category:17th-century Irish politicians
• Category:18th-century Irish politicians
• Category:19th-century Irish politicians
• Category:20th-century Irish politicians
• Category:21st-century Irish politicians

Nominator’s rationale: The Irish categoriers were deleted in 2012 after a (not really conclusive) discussion (see October 5 2012 discussion)). Hugo999 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC) But this has only meant that the following 17th-century categories in particular are cluttered up with a large number of subcategories (see also re English MPs/politicians below):[reply]

• Category:17th-century politicians
• Category:17th-century Irish people
• Category:17th-century Scottish people

An alternative for the 17th century Irish category would be to call it 17th-century Irish MPs, as subcategories without the intermediate politicians by century categories (though this would not be applicable to Scotland, see Category:17th-century Scottish people).

• Category:17th-century Irish MPs to be a subcat of Category:17th-century Irish people & Category:17th-century politicians.
• Oppose The people-by-century categories are a curse; they clutter up articles with categories which are useless because they are so diverse. In previous discussions, there has been a consensus that they should exist only as ((container)) categories -- i.e., they should contain only subcats, not individual articles. I might support the creation of any such categories which can function as containers, provide that is accompanied by a purge of all the individual articles which are causing the clutter.
  Note for example that we already have Category:Irish MPs 1639–49 etc, which could be subcats of Category:17th-century Irish politicians ... but I don't see the need for it. Category:17th-century politicians has only 29 subcats, which is fine ... and it should just be purged of individual articles on MPs. Same for other similar categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - redundant.GreyShark (dibra) 18:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The above are opposed to the whole category trees of "people by century" or "people by occupation/nationality by century" etc. But for an existing category tree why should Category:17th-century Irish politicians be treated differently from (say) Category:20th-century Albanian politicians or Category:20th-century Irish writers? Hugo999 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hugo999: Trying to keep tabs on the whole "people by century" tree is like playing whack-a-mole on a humungous lawn. You can put in huge amounts of time rolling back one part of it, and building a consensus for a few parameters to restrain it (such as the container-only principle) ... and then a year or so later it is popping up all over some different topic area.
    For now, I don't want to put time into another massive purge, and am content to just support zapping whatever comes to CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle provided it is basically (or mainly) a container category. Currently, we have categories for Scottish and Irish MPs by Parliament directly in 17th century politicians, with for example a French politicians as a sibling: that does not seem appropriate. The current parents of Category:Irish MPs 1639–49 include Category:Members of the Parliament of Ireland (pre-1801). An alternative argument which would produce the opposite result might be to split that parent by century. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, I wouldn't object having an Irish or Scottish politicians category on top of a bunch of MPs categories in every century either. The bigger challenge here is to purge categories like Category:17th-century Irish people to remove biographies that already are in an 17th-century Irish MPs category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2016 (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. MER-C 12:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Saints of the Golden Legend

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. In many articles of this category the Golden Legend is merely mentioned in a footnote, or not at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete either performer by performance, or something is in some book collection. Next we'll have Category:Places of Ptolemy's Geography to go with the various stars by which star catalogs they're in. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2016 (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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Footballers from Liverpool to Category:Sportspeople from Liverpool

Nominator's rationale: Should be merged in to Category:Sportspeople from Liverpool JMHamo (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. JMHamo (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - why merge? There are sufficient entries in the 'footballer' category for it to be a valid SUBCAT. GiantSnowman 19:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale for creating this category was that Category:Sportspeople from Liverpool is the largest category in Category:Sportspeople by city or town in England, there is probably limited scope to divide this category into areas of Liverpool, and other cities already have similar categories in Category:British footballers by city or town (although there are a few categories there which are pretty small and I wouldn't have created). I see no reason for upmerge. Severo (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid subcategory with scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There should be ample scope for a category like this for the larger British cities. If we did merge to the sportspeople, we would probably find it became over-big and had to be split. It is not as if professional footballers commonly engage in athletics in the off-season (so far as there is one today). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- If there is enough subjects to fill a sub-category, why get rid of it? Red Jay (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:21st-century Indian cricketers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 19#Cricketers by century. There is no need to upmerge, as the contents are already in other specific categories of Indian cricketers. The category's creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. – Fayenatic London 15:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:57, 9 January 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:X-Men franchise characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. This category, despite the new name, is a copy of Category:X-Men film characters, which was deleted per discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)][reply]

• Support deletion: Duplicate of deleted category. DarkKnight2149 14:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: @Graeme Bartlett: as you declined speedy deletion, please explain why you think "this new cat addresses the issues raised in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_4#Category:X-Men_film_characters" (as recorded in the category page history). – Fayenatic London 16:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The main issue raised in the previous discussion was that the characters were not just in the film(s) but were found in other products too. The new name seems to be much more general, covering not just film, but comics, books, plastic toys, tv series etc. So the other discussion is not a precedent that applies directly. Therefore G4 does not apply. So I urge participants here to have a stronger reason to delete this than that there was a similar category deleted before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Graeme Bartlett: per the category's discription and its entries, it only pertains to characters from the films and a spin-off television series that hasn't even been released. It is basically the same as before, in fact "X-Men franchise" is being piped to X-Men (film series). It makes much more sense just to keep it listified.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedent. If someone wants this, go to WP:DRV to try to overturn the recent prior discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments The definition of the category says that it includes "Fictional characters that are based on the same characters that are published by Marvel Comics." So it is an X-Men category which fails to focus on the characters of the original comic books. Dimadick (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question -- My rule on this is "one franchise, one category". The rationale for the previous CFD was that they were all Marvel Comics characters. Are there other Marvel series, so that a split by comic would be appropriate? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2016 (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: rename. MER-C 12:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:17th-century British politicians to Category:17th-century English politicians

Nominator's rationale: There was no United Kingdom or Great Britain in the 17th century, and the renamed 17th century category would have similar parent categories to Category:16th-century English politicians; eg Category:17th-century English people by occupation rather than just an European category. Hugo999 (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC) (see also re Scottish & Irish MPs/politicians above):[reply]

• Support per nom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The only subcategory is about English Members of Parliament. Dimadick (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:17th-century politicians, or delete. This a pointless category which contains only one item -- Category:17th-century English MPs‎ -- and is highly unlikely ever to contain any more. The parent Category:17th-century politicians is not heavily populated, so there is no need to divide it in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Current subcategories of Category:17th-century politicians are categories for 17th-century Dutch and French politicians.

• Support -- There is little (rather than no) point in a British category before Parliamentary union in 1707, despite the union of the crown in 1603. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - consistency of master category group. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:29, 11 January 2016 (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. MER-C 12:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Education in Carniola‎
• Propose deleting Category:Educational institutions in Carniola‎
• Propose deleting Category:Libraries in Carniola‎
• Propose deleting Category:Religion in Carniola‎
• Propose deleting Category:Christianity in Carniola
• Propose deleting Category:Roman Catholic Church in Carniola‎
• Propose deleting Category:Communications in Carniola‎
• Propose deleting Category:Carniola‎n media
• Propose deleting Category:Carniolan journalism‎
• Propose deleting Category:Economy of Carniola‎
• Propose deleting Category:Agriculture in Carniola‎
• Propose deleting Category:Science and technology in Carniola‎

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the above categories exclusively host biography subcategories (while these biographies obviously are in Category:Carniolan people already), which makes the nominated categories redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, someone seems to have followed another country's category structure here even though there is not sufficient content to make it useful. – Fayenatic London 20:57, 12 January 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:MIDC Projects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Small categor. Shyamsunder (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The one article in it doesn't really belong, the category has no parents, ... DexDor ^(talk) 06:18, 12 January 2016 (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 to Category:Agricultural cooperatives. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cooperative sugar factories and rural development (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Ill defined category. Shyamsunder (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Agricultural cooperatives. I'd also be open to deleting the main article, Cooperative sugar factories and rural development. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as suggested for the moment -- It is not a good article, but the article should exist, perhaps as Cooperative sugar factories in Maharashtra . According to the article, there are a potential 122 more articles. If more of these are created, I am open to re-creating a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2016 (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. MER-C 12:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The Man from Snowy River - creative personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:The Man from Snowy River - actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure that these are valid categories at all. They doesn't exist for other films. I'd like to hear the opinion from other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Imagine the category clutter if we tried to categorize all cast and crew by what films they worked on. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oculi (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'I would rather re-categorise the pages for these people to merge them with Category:The Man from Snowy River, as has been done with the Gilbert and Sullivan performers etc. Figaro (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do not categorize actors by their performances, and I do not particularly see the use of a vague "creative personnel" category. Dimadick (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- because it is a performance by performer category, which we do not allow. I suspect that the G&S case relates to people who spent most of their careers as member of the Doyly Carte Company (though I have not checked). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete classic performer by performance category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OC#PERF. Actors quite commonly make dozens of films and television series over the course of their career, as do creative crew — this would lead to horrifying category bloat if we started doing it comprehensively, and The Man from Snowy River does not occupy any special sphere of notability, unmatched by any other film, in that regard. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2016 (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: upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:The Man from Snowy River - films to Category:The Man from Snowy River (films)
• Propose renaming Category:The Man from Snowy River - soundtracks to Category:The Man from Snowy River (soundtracks)
• Propose renaming Category:The Man from Snowy River - stage musical to Category:The Man from Snowy River (musical)

Nominator's rationale:Improper category name, should be renamed a more appropriate title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all and upmerge content to Category:The Man from Snowy River. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Do not upmerge. Oculi (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• My first option would be delete and upmerge to Category:The Man from Snowy River (this works best as a helpful navigation tool). Second option is to rename as proposed by the nominator. Pichpich (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• :::Rename or 'merge would seem to be the best options. Figaro (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. They category contents overlap, e.g. the musical category has 3 pages: the musical, the film of the musical and the soundtrack of the musical; so the apparent numbers of pages do not really justify the categories. Note that there is also a navigation template for this content. – Fayenatic London 09:04, 22 January 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jordanian war crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Completely baseless and controversial category. It deals with speculation as fact, should be removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for Other Reasons The only article in this category occurred the day before the creation of Israel and 2 days before the 1948 Arab–Israeli War so this happened in Mandatory Palestine. Category:Massacres in Mandatory Palestine seems like the correct category and the Kfar Etzion massacre article is already there. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it was two years after Jordan turned independent, so Jordan is to carry the blame. What difference does it make that de jure Jordanian Army operated outside of Jordan?GreyShark (dibra) 17:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Carry the blame' is your opinion, aka original research. There is not a single source saying anything about Jordanian warcrimes. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment War crimes categories should be based on those adjudicated by the war crimes tribunal. So should be with this one, which is no different that the Category:Israeli war crimes none of which have been adjudicated, so baselessness goes both ways. If we are willing to let categories like this stand without adjudication, there is plenty of fodder in Jewish_Quarter_(Jerusalem)#Jordanian_era for "war crimes" such as forced emigration, destruction of religious sites, destruction of civilian housing, etc. None were prosecuted but same of most of these "war crimes" allegations. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46: I am not saying there haven't been any Jordanian war crimes. This category, has only one article in it. The perpetuators of that massacre were not the Jordanians, at least according to sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment whether there may have been Jordanian war crimes or not - unless some formal adjudication says they are "war crimes", WP should not be saying they're war crimes, which goes for every article in the tree. On occasion, international courts have been set up to investigate and prosecute war crimes: Nuremburg, the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal, etc. When such a court convicts someone of a "war crime" then WP should so categorize it. As to who (organizationally) perpetrated a war crime, without a statement by the reliable tribunal, it's pure guesswork and WP:OR on WP's part. Most of the contents of Category:Albanian war crimes were committed by Serbian citizens (now Kosovar citizens, probably), so is "Albanian" mean ethnic not nationality, that's a shocker. Moreover, without the solidity of a tribunal we're faced with a whole mess of what is a war crime, a common crime, or terrorism. If we take the French president at his word, France & ISIS are at war. If ISIS purposely targets civilians it'll be labelled terrorism, if France purposely targets civilians, it'll be labelled a war crime. The asymmetry needs to be held to an objective standard which only internationally-recognized tribunals can provide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46: Obviously none [1] Makeandtoss (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, as is true with virtually all of the tree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46: [2], [3] ? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No adjudications, so those are deleteable as well. as would be [[4]] where people are being extradited but not convicted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46: I don't think you need adjudications to mark something as war crimes. Scholars, public views, NGOs and experts are quite enough. In Jordan's case, none. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. As I've pointed out if mere third party accusations or conclusions are sufficient, then the categories have no meaning, because war crimes mean whatever anyone says them to mean. You seem to have a difference of opinion between those attributed to Jordan and those to Israel. I think you have an agenda you're pushing. This is not a battleground. You should know that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46: I have exact same opinion between those attributed to Jordan and those to Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Then add Hurva Synagogue to Jordanian war crimes category and withdraw your nomination, and we can have a comprehensive discussion about what should and shouldn't be in war crimes categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46: As I showed you, there is not a single source to support that claim. And as I showed you, there are dozens of sources to support Israeli war crimes. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources are quoted in the article that it was blown up for no reason by Jordanian forces. You're agenda is blinding you. If destroying religious sites is, in your opinion, not a war crime, adjudications at tribunals say otherwise. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46: I read that, but did you read WP:OR ? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I have no strong opinion on war crime categories, the sole member of this category is the so-called Kfar Etzion massacre. It involves the Arab Legion of Jordan defeating the Haganah and executing 15 enemy combatants who had already surrendered. It is an action by the Jordanian military, but who exactly calls this a war crime? Because the article does not use the term. Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the entire problem with this tree. Without limiting it to tribunals, it's just original research. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- also the related Category:War crimes in Jordan. The one article for each category certainly needs categorising, but no one has been arrested or convicted for the alleged crime. I would be open to categorising the article in this category as an Arab massacre of the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, even though it happened before the state of Israel was declared. The war did not begin at independence, but was raging for sometime before British withdrawal. We do not allow categorisation of individuals as (ordinary) criminals unless convicted. We should apply the same standard to war crimes. There is too much POV in this kind of categorisation. By that date, we had had the Nuremburg trials, which were the first convictions for war crimes. However, waging war in a manner contrary to the Geneva Conventions was at that stage a new concept. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Beyond not being useful for 1 article, the article deal with events happening before the creation of Jordan and dealing with Transjordan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you misread the article. The so-called massacre is dated to 1948, and the Emirate of Transjordan ended in 1946. Jordan is an older state than Israel. Dimadick (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2016 (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.