Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Slaveholders

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Category:Slaveholders | Result: Deleted[edit]

Category:Slaveholders (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)


I did not add pharaoh, rather left it up for discussion. I do not own articles, that's Ryulong who owns super sentei and denies the denies it has size change, like all mvoies with giant women. [1]. I say drop Hitler because otherwise Lincolns whitehouse staffed by slaves would count; not all pharaohs owned slaves either so ignore that one, pretty sure not all Caliphs did either. Also notice who David Gerard didn't remove Muhammad. It's sexist to think someone LGBT can't be racist; your ignoring this category is historical revisionism. Is there a rule against flash mobbing these discussions, becuase that would favor anyone who knows off wiki contact info; so it would be a dumb rule. Also it is polite to allow both sides to form a flashmob; mentioning an end date would assist with this so ample time is allowed to prepare an infinitely large jury.


  1. Pointless category, and EE's argument in favour of its relevance illustrates why, as well as implying that Wikipedia refusing to go along with EE is some sort of conspiracy. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    As I put it in the nomination on the category page: "I agree with Wikipedia that this category is rather pointless. We could start adding pretty much every ancient history figure to it. Contrary to EE's claim on the talkpage, this is not some sort of historical whitewashing to avoid having "too many U.S. Presidents" included, but instead it illustrates the pointlessness of the category". ScepticWombat (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Delete Scream!! (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oh, it's an EE dropping? Kill - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    this in particular is not a good basis for deletion. I don't have any reason to explicitly keep the category, but not one of the claims here in delete makes any sense at all from a wiki quality perspective. Ikanreed (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry that I didn't copy/paste my reason from the nomination on the category page. I've done so now just below my original delete vote. Nevertheless, I still think that EE's argument for creating the category is actually an excellent argument against its relevance. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    It was actually created by CivicCat in November 2013.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Ah, my bad. I didn't check the fossil record, and EE's justifications on the category talkpage seemed very "ownership'ish". Sloppy work on my part, sorry. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. What? No one added Obama yet for enslaving us all with his Nazi public health care?!?! Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Useless diffuse category. Thomas Jefferson is an obvious candidate, lately in the public gaze, but Alfred the Great and Pharaoh also qualify. So what? I don't see the point of gathering such aah, diversity into one category, to say nothing of the extensively tedious wikilawyering it will invite around characters like Hitler. Carpetsmoker may be joking above, but some currently prolific RW editors have a less humorous bent. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Delete. This is not a defining category and would include almost every person we have a page on from a few hundred years back. If we must have something like this, a "List of people who owned slaves" page would allow us to make the point about past attitude towards slavery without catagory-spamming the wiki.--TiaC (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  7. Reluctant delete. I can see why it looks missiony, but in the end it's not really relevant to the arguments about either individual slaveholders, or about slavery itself (unless anyone is saying "slavery was OK because Thomas Jefferson"). In the end it's like the arguments about Hitler being a vegetarian, or Einstein being religious - it's a bit of random gossip that says nothing about the issue. BicyclewheelModerator 19:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  8. We don't need a category. We need a page that lists slaveowners in eras when slavery was beginning to be more commonly attacked, such as Jeff. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


It's more tangible & less arbitrary than many of our other categories (right of reason, centrist stupidity, extreme moonbattery, batshit crazy, bullshit, unremitting horror, etc). WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but those are extremely informative categories. Helpful ones. They alert you to the flavor of crazy you're dealing with. Whereas this one is dry historic fact. Ikanreed (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
You closed this after a day! The much more important issue is whether or not this slavery information will be important enough to include on the pages for presidents up to Lincoln.

Most of the entries for unremitting horror are serious though; just dry historic bones. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)