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: There is no need to subdivide by region either Category:Wikipedians in Africa or Category:African Wikipedians as both categories directly contain their appropriate country-level subcategories. These intermediate-level categories hinder, rather than help, navigation by contributing to clutter and confusion. All category members are already appropriately categorized, so upmerging is not needed. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all sub-dividing the continent is not useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 22 February 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: Per the discussion of 11 February, we no longer categorize individuals by the trait of vegetarianism; it follows that we have no need of a mechanism to categorize them by vegetarianism and century. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one person in both these categories (as in 1 for both of them, not each) was a vegetarian, but it is not clear that that is a defining trait of him. Vegetarianism is really too ephemeral to be worth categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per precedent. trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 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:Wikipedians in Juneau-Southeast Alaska[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: Per Juneau, Alaska. There is no other "Juneau" in Alaska, to my knowledge, that would require disambiguation by region within Alaska. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the formulation of the name indicates to me this is for Wikipedians in all of Southeast Alaska... -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 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:Mountains and ski resorts in the Okanagan[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: this category combined two hierarchies unwittingly; the Mountains categories are well-established per Category:Mountains of British Columbia, I've launched discussion about splitting it by regions, of which the Okanagan is a main one....my main reservation there is should it be "of the Okanagan" or "in the Okanagan", no sister categories exist yet; "of" seems usual wikiconvention, "in" more local speech usagenorms/....Category:Ski areas and resorts in British Columbia is the parent hierarchy for ski resorts.....some discussion is around about lumping them by BC Tourism region but that's not been established yet; for now this is needed to break the two types of contents here.... Skookum1 (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with split. All ski mountains are mountains, but not all mountains are ski mountains. Two related but not co-categorizable concepts here. As for the "of" vs. "or", man made things get "in", landforms get "of" (it's in the rules somewhere). The Interior(Talk) 00:20, 20 February 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: Same sort of category nominated for the same reasons as those in the section below; however, nominated seperately as Ancient Greeks and Romans may be more defined by vegetarianism than modernday people, so a seperate discussion may be desired. The BushrangerOne ping only 02:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The arguments made in the discussion of 11 February apply just as much to these categories and, indeed, are even more apparent. Verifiability, for example, becomes an even less surmountable issue when we consider the case of people who lived and died approximately two millennia ago. Most importantly, however, vegetarianism is not a sufficiently defining characteristic for categorization; being an advocate of vegatarianism can be defining, but that would be an entirely different category that need not be subdivided by nationality or historical ethnicity. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a vegetarian is inherently too trivial to be worth categorizing. Anyway the joint categorizing of these people assumes that they are a coherent group which is not true.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per precedent. Trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 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.
Delete for reasons given in the previous discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a defining aspect of a person. Arsenikk(talk) 20:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons discussed in previous discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per precedent. Trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 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 have no article on Abrahamic prophecy, I also can't find any good hits on Google books or Google scholar for the term. The articles don't seem to be about Abraham's prophecies (this Google scholar hit uses the term to mean that), so it's misleading to boot. Dweller (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete This seems to be some amalgamation of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religion which to my mind is not at all well-formed. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a generally used term and no clear inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 19 February 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.
