Category:Years in Indian association football navigational boxes[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale:Football is the official name of the sport in India. Association football is never used in India to describe the sport and soccer is only used by a select bunch but a very, very small minority. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The term "association football" helps avoid amibuity in actual use, which is good for a global project. We need to disambiguate the term football because it is otherwise ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a global change on wikipedia to "association football" then say this on WP:Football, otherwise give a judgement here based on the current standards in place. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- There is a longstanding consensus that sports are known by the name used in the relevant country. If Soccer is called Football in India, WP should too. In US "football" means American football and Soccer is Assiciation Football. Similarly, with national versions of football in Ireland and Australia. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Football in India refers to association football, and there is no need for disambiguating this category. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 'football' is not ambiguous in India. GiantSnowman 12:28, 2 September 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is a bunch of songs that mention candy in the title, that doesn't make it "about candy" In fact those where there is a comment about what the song is about makes it clear the songs are about something else, for example, Lollipop (Mika song) says Mika wrote the song as a message to his younger sister, warning her not to have sex too soon as it would "mean something very different to guys than it would to her.Candy Shop says, the chemistry between 50 Cent and Olivia "is almost as explicit as the lyrics ... the bass line is made for grinding to. For Candy (Cameo song) the article says nothing about the subject matter, but part of the lyrics are, (It's like candy)/Ooh, vanilla! Oh, chocolate!/You look real nice, wrapped up tight/(You're so tender). Yeah sure, does anybody want to sit on my candy stick? Richhoncho (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category has been horribly misapplied. Many of these songs have absolutely nothing to do with candy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per other comments - most if not all of these songs are not "about" candy - they use "candy" as a metaphor. In itself, that is no justification for a category. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete putting metaphors aside; this suffers the usual failings of "about" categories; how much about the subject must the song be and what reliable sources tell us that it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2013 (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 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:Hispanic and Latino American child actors[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both parents. We don't need to have this last-rung category to finely define child actors by ethnicity. See related discussion here. A simple category intersection can give the same information. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should compare our differing understandings of what "bottom-rung" means, OWK. It occurs to me that the issue is perhaps more clearly seen in the other CFD, because I purposely refrained from creating sub-categories by gender for Category:Hispanic and Latino American child actors, as those would have been **true** "bottom-rung" categories. It also occurs to me to point out that, in both cases I am also factoring in the current concensus on creating gendered categories for actors, which has not yet been fully implemented in all branches of that category tree.
As I explained in the other discussion, Category:African-American child actors does not constitute a "bottom-rung" category, because it's not, in fact, the "bottom-rung". Category:African-American child actresses, on the other hand -- along with its missing counterpart, Category:African-American male child actors -- ARE/would be "bottom-rung" categories, because they entail a further intersection by gender -- and that is why I support upmerging it as proposed. Please explain where you see things differently than what I've laid out here. (PS - Thanks for the CFD notification. It's a shame that some editors dispense with that.) Cgingold (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks needed - twinkle does it for me, so I can't really take credit... This category (and the African-American ones) are bottom rung because they slice Category:American child actors by ethnicity, and there are no other sibling/uncle/cousin categories into which things can be diffused - thus it's the last rung of the ladder, and it slices by ethnicity. It also slices Category:Hispanic and Latino American actors by age, which is fine btw. As a counter example, Category:African-American politicians is not a last-rung, as there are many sibling categories which are diffusing. I'm fine with gendered categories, but we don't need to implement gendered categories all the way down the tree. It would suffice, IMHO, to have something like "American male actors" and "American actresses" as the only gendered categories, and then put everyone else together by ethnicity, state, year, genre, whatever. The other problem with these categories, besides the bottom rung issue, is they are essentially triple intersections: job, ethnicity+nationality, age. We usually discourage these. I invite you to explore the category intersection tool which is quite powerful, I made a demo here: Category:Singaporean_poets, you could easily do the same in the actors categories if needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge for multiple reasons. 1-this is a pointy creation mainly done to protect and influence the debate on the similar African-American category. 2-This brekas the bottom rung rule. Since that is an ERGS rule, if all other subcategories of a category are ERGS, then the bottom rung rule is violated. 3-it makes sense to split actors at all levels by gender, child actors have different roles because of gender. In the case of being Hispanic or Latino, many people who are such are not cast as such, and may not even be perceived as such by those who watch the films/TV shows etc. This is seen even more in some of our categories like Category:Actors of Japanese descent, where I have come across people who try to argue that Dean Cain is white (although I have also seen people gripe about his being Superman in Lois and Clark because he was "too Asian looking to be Superman", so some clearly see even just looking at him he has Japanese ancestry). We recently decided to keep Category:American child actresses, but ethnicity does not control casting, awards, roles, etc. in the same way that gender does. Is Lucie Arnaz's casting as Kim Carter in Here's Lucy at all influenced by her being Hispanic?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really have to object to your lead remark, JPL. "Pointy"?? Hardly. To the contrary, I felt that you had raised a valid and valuable point that couldn't be ignored. I created and populated the new category in the same spirit that I have created countless other categories. In all my years editing here, I have never done anything merely to "make a point". It's not how I operate, and frankly, I have much better things to do with my time. So I would appreciate it if you would kindly strike thru that line, in the interest of present and future comity. (As we like to say, Assume Good Faith). Cgingold (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When its only sibling category is currently nominated for upmerger, it does not make sense to respond to comments in that nomination by creating this category. That is not the right approach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could not agree LESS. What arrant nonsense. If you've never seen a new category created as a positive and constructive response to a CFD discussion, that merely goes to show that you haven't been around here as long as some of us have. And just because you don't like it sure as hell doesn't give you the right to make baseless accusations. So much for Assume Good Faith. Cgingold (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond further to both of the above comments later today. Exhaustion precludes me from doing so right now. Cgingold (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People are arguing that we need less specific categories by ethnicity, the response to that should not be to go and create more of them. Creating a category like this when its one potential sibling is already up for deletion really just creates more work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As is required by our editing guidelines Wikipedia:CATGRS, this category can only exist if Hispanic and Latino child actors act differently than their non-Hispanic and Latino peers. Who says they do? unless someone can articulate how they do and backs it up with reliable sources, it must go. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since no one has yet argued such for Lucy Arnaz, in fact no one has even tried to claim the character Kim Carter was meant to be Hispanic at all, I think this is a compelling argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just 3 entries. ...William 13:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge without prejudice against recreation if we get a few more articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2013 (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:do not rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is another attempt to make hisotry fit a WP category scheme, rather than vice versa. Belgian revolution refers to one revolution. The proposed target is thus a misleading term. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Renaming/Comment - It definitely would not be correct to refer to the events listed in the category as "Belgian revolutions". I understand why the category's creator avoided using that term. However, I'm not at all sure that the term he chose is appropriate either: the Brabant Revolution took place in the Austrian Netherlands, and it's not clear at all just "where" the Liège Revolution took place, in terms of governing entities, because that part of Europe was in a state of flux at the time. In any event, I don't think it makes sense to say that they took place "in Belgium". We may need to dismantle this category altogether. I'm hoping that the category creator will join the discussion and perhaps shed some light on these issues. Cgingold (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A revolution is clearly effected by the contemporary political reality, and the contemporary political reality of two of these was not Belgium at all, so we should just scrap the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but keep: I'm the creator of the category, and I did so for a simple reason. Despite the Brabant revolution occurring in the Austrian Netherlands, there is a clear lineage between the separate revolutions - the term "Belgium" and the modern Belgian flag both originate in the Brabant revolution. The Liège revolution was partly the inspiration of the Liège volunteers who marched to Brussels to defend the Belgian Revolution of 1830. Creating separate categories for the (single) revolutions in the Austrian Netherlands and Prince-Bishopric of Liège, would be overly confusing. By the way, I'm afraid Cgingold is, unfortunately, incorrect and both the Brabant & Liège revolutions occurred clearly in the territory of modern-day Belgium and not outside it. All in all, I think it is a harmless category, potentially of interest to our users, and should be kept, but not renamed. As I explained elsewhere, my chief concern in this is not about the use of the term "Belgium" in the title, but rather to avoid confusion with Category:Belgian Revolution.Brigade Piron (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your thinking on the subject -- I always appreciate hearing from Category creators. I didn't mean to suggest that the events in question didn't take place in territory that later became part of the modern state of Belgium -- only that it wasn't considered to be "Belgium" at the time. I probably should have addressed that issue explicitly in my remarks. We run into this sort of issue all the time with categories for earlier periods of history. And as a rule, we don't "pretend" that a certain swath of territory that later became part of Country X was already part of that country in an earlier period. I can understand why you want to group these revolutions together in one category, but it's gonna need a better name that more accurately reflects the geo-political circumstances. Cgingold (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2013 (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:Americans convicted of spying against Iran[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC#SMALL, a subcategorization by the nation, which against they were convicted of spying doesn't make sense with only 8 articles. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 11:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- no need to split. I recall a case of some people who strayed over the border from Iraq and were arrested and accused for spying, but am not sure of their nationality Category:People convicted of spying against Iran might be a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no compelling reason to merge this category. Yes it's small, but small categories are not automatically disqualified. (Note: I just added a 2nd article, about the hikers that Peter alluded to. I also added a new parent cat for US-Iran relations.) I submit that in the case of espionage -- as part of foreign relations -- it is entirely appropriate to specify which 2 nations are involved. And we do, in fact, have quite a few sub-categories of Category:People convicted of spying that do precisely that. I agree with Peter that it would be a good idea to have Category:People convicted of spying against Iran, which would serve as another parent for this category. Cgingold (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2013 (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 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.
Nominator's rationale: The scope of this category is different than the title suggests: it seeks to include biographies and not scandals. However, there are other issues in that the inclusion criteria is based on accusations and not convictions etc which is what we'd require for bios, as opposed to pages on scandals. Also, the intersection is random and in violation of WP:OCAT -- the scandals are involving people (leaders of individual practices) and not the practice of Yoga itself, so it is invalid. —SpacemanSpiff 06:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'll add that the criteria for inclusion is too vague.TheRingess (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless, uneeded and empty anyway. Kumioko (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2013 (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:Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism signatories[edit]
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.
Delete -- not separately defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a signer of a document is rarely defining, clearly not in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having read thru the main article, I concur that the fact that these individuals have signed this particular document is not of such overwhelming significance as to merit categorization. Cgingold (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2013 (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 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; none of the included articles are about venues which are mounting biking venues in the sense that Aston Hill Mountain Bike Area is a mountain biking venue. Good Ol’factory(talk) 17:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked two articles, both of which indicated that mountain biking was encouraged. One can certainly ride a bike in many places, but the trackbed of an old railway and forestry roads are particularly suitable for it. Nevertheless, the inclusion criteria should be tightened and the category tree purged. This should apply to all related UK categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
purge all - this should mainly contain things which are explicitly laid out as mountain biking venues - not just places where people happen to mountain bike.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize people by combination of marital status and occupation - this is the only "unmarried" category and we only have "married" categories in a few cases where it's very unusual (e.g. Category:Married Roman Catholic bishops). DexDor (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I guess I better hold off on creating Category:Unmarried un-elected leaders. (It seemed like such a good idea at the time! :) - But seriously: the subject is not without interest; however, it really doesn't lend itself to a Category. The inclusion criteria are so loose as to be almost meaningless. Perhaps a category for "elected leaders who have made a formal, binding commitment to lifelong celibacy"?? Somehow, I think not. The bottom line is, we really have no choice but to Delete this particular category. Cgingold (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete no use for this category, not defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I have to say I am surprised James Buchannan is not in it. Actually though Grover Cleveland should also probably be in it, since he was at one point an unmarried president of the United States. However, its title is also not clear. To qualify does a person have to be never married, or do divorced or widowed people count since they are unmarried at the time they assume office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; except in those rare cases where a person somehow manages to become the exception to the rule in an occupation where a particular marital status is otherwise a job requirement (e.g. Roman Catholic clergy), a person's marital status is not relevant or defining in conjunction with their occupation. As well, marital status is not a fixed state — formerly unmarried people get married and formerly married people get divorced or become widowed rather frequently, meaning that this would quickly get thorny and unmaintainable (especially but not exclusively for living people.) Pierre Trudeau, for example, took office as a bachelor, got married while in office and then divorced again while still in office — so as an elected leader who was both married and unmarried during his term as Prime Minister, he both belongs in and doesn't belong in this category. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For example Jerry Brown is in this category, but he is currently married and an elected leader. I think this points out how trivial it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reasonable point in mentioning this. Non encyclopedic. Kumioko (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2013 (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.
@BrownHairedGirl, I agree the title "Disbarred professionals' is not ideal since only lawyers are disbarred not physicians/nurses/engineers/architects/accountants etc. BUT... please find a more appropriate name instead of simply deleting. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People by occupation. ReparentCategory:Disbarred lawyers to an appropriate category, covering doctors, nurses and others removed from the appropriate professional register for misconduct, etc. If we do not have such a category, then we should rename this (rather than delete). "Disbarred" is a term appropriate only to members of the bar, i.e. lawyers; in UK, where solicitors are not the same as barristers, the term is not appropriate to solicitors. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Reparent'Category:Disbarred lawyers to an appropriate category, covering doctors, nurses and others removed from the appropriate professional register for misconduct
This exactly is the reason I created this category in the first place. I could not find a way to locate physicians who have been officially removed from their profession due to malpractice. However, since I am used to having my category-creations deleted in short order I did not go the extra mile that is required to make this into a properly titled well-designed category. Maybe some of the editors here whose efforts are not exclusively directed at tearing down the work of others will complete this important task. I am out of this. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. Yes, I would have suggested merge, were it not for the fact that the subcategories were already subcats of Category:People by occupation (in some cases subs of subs). Either is fine by me. Andrewaskew (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see a problem with that, since no profession is ever licensed everywhere across the globe, these would necessarily be resorted to only categorize professionals by locality for those localities which licence professionals. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some notable engineers/architects etc did not have a licence (e.g. because a licence was not required in their country at the time they practiced) - e.g. Archimedes. Therefore the whole of Category:Engineers, Category:Architects etc shouldn't be under a "Licenced professionals" category. Would Bouncer_(doorman) fit in the category ? DexDor (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Archimedes was not a professional engineer, so it's wrong to categorize him as a professional in all cases. Indeed, most of the Ancient Greeks would not be professionals of any sort. As I said, if they are renamed, the categories would need to be resorted. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are better, less POV-problematic ways to parent categories. Professional is a mark of stuatus in some ways, without having universally agree on limits of what is and what is not a profession. Plus, some of these categories might include people who were not professionals in the field but still were notable for it (architects is the one where I would not be surprised to see a few cases of amateur notable architects).John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this useful category and fix the article professional instead of "talking". XOttawahitech (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added Category:Professional ethics as a parent category, not because it is the right parent category, but it is related. I feel that trying to construct a proper parent category is a wasted effort in this environment. XOttawahitech (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (voted above) -- I think that we have a consensus (or something close to it) that there is little distinction between "profession" and "occupation". As a category that is just parenting the single subcategory Category:Disbarred lawyers, the question arises what its parent should be. Clearly, there should be a category for Category:Doctors struck off the medical register. In UK, a number of professions (inlcuding nurses) are subject to similar professional sanctions. There is a registration scheme for the security industry (such as night club bouncers) - to keep criminals out of it, so that a de-registered Bouncer (doorman), might go into a sibling category. Can we have suggestions as to what the parent should be called? We have something like 45 people as disbarred lawyers, so that plain deletion should not be an option. Can we have suggestions as to what the parent should be called? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Professional" is a meaningful grouping of occupations, at least it is if limited as is the current category to the more traditionally licensed professions . Changing it to "licensed" is not appropriate in all cases, especially if we include historical individuals. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Professional" is too hard to parse, too contested, and temporal. The classic three (clergy, doctors, and lawyers) may have been joined by nurses, librarians, teachers, and others, at various times. I think this is better handled in an article that discusses and links to the profession fields, rather than as a category. ... There are many ways of categorizing and grouping occupations, including "white-collar"/blue/pink; "middle-class"/working class/elite; and many others. All of these are going to be better handled in articles about the subject, which link to representative examples, rather than categorizing the professions themselves into these overlapping & vague schema. --Lquilter (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "professional" is by common parlance one distinguished from an amateur which is entirely what I would suppose is covered by "people by occupation" as distinguished from "people by hobby". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know what "professionals" means in this context, but this usage is not defining. The contained categories have other appropriate containers, so removal of these categories won't mess up an existing structure. There might be some other appropriate "de-licensed" categorization for the three individual articles in the "disbarred professionals" category, but it's not an important need. --Orlady (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2013 (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.
Relisted at 2013 SEP 17 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
