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.
Comment what if you didn't die when you self-immolate? It wouldn't be a suicide then... -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but right now the category is a subcategory of Category:Suicides by method, and actual usage does not appear to include unsuccessful self-immolations. If we're going to include unsuccessful self-immolations (and maybe we should), then Category:Suicides by self-immolation should be created and made a subcategory for both, but I think that's too fine of a distinction. --Nlu (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the issue of accidental self-immolation, (if they died) would those be suicides? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those are usually considered self-immolations. --Nlu (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than hypotheticals, 65.92.180.137, do you know of any articles about a person who survived a self-immolation attempt? I imagine it's pretty rare for one to survive if it is performed as it usually is, with the subject being drenched in copious amounts of inflammable liquid. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This is part of the suicide tree, and this term is used for suicides. I do not think any of the people here are accidental.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Some of the list articles include people who survived, e.g. 2011 Algerian self-immolations and Self-immolation protests by Tibetans in China, but having surveyed most of the contents, I think the biographies in this category are of people who died immediately or within a couple of weeks. The lists do each include deaths so would not need to be re-categorised. – FayenaticLondon 19:35, 20 March 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:Fictional American people of Armenian descent[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: Only one article (and one redirect) in this category. JDDJS (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there is no in-article support for this claim in the one article in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth the one article in this category lacks any sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 24 March 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:Fictional American people of Salvadoran descent[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.
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 all to "Category:Football competitions in Foo". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, under-populated categories that do not merit seperation from the parent. GiantSnowman 14:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge, but I think that the proposal is slightly wrong. Those categories should be merged to "Category:Football competitions in ...", not "Category:Football in ...". --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 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:Ghanaian expatriate footballers in Nigeria[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:Delete. Previous consensus can be found here - these triple intersections are overkill, and the existing '[Nationality] expatriate footballers', 'Expatriate footballers in [country]' and '[Nationality] expatriates in [country]' categories are sufficient. GiantSnowman 14:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But when we also have a category-tree (outside the football-project) that is "Fooian expatriates in Booian", isn't this a reasonable sub-category of that tree? Mentoz86 (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These categories cut down on needless duplication of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't know any background or the football specific reason to have this category (came via an wikiproject:Africa alert), but this seems to be a poor category. "Ghanaian expatriate footballers in Nigeria" is a problematic category because: 1. We don't know where any of the people in the category actually are. Hence "in Nigeria" is not verifiable. We could change it to "were in Nigeria" but then it just becomes a ridiculous category. Indeed of the 5 players currently in the category, we have no evidence that any are "in Nigeria" and good reasons to suspect that none are (all 5 have jobs in other countries right now). 2. Three other topics that can deal with it and more appropriately so. If the players were expatriate footballers, they probably were expatriates to multiple countries (as the nature of the sport). To pick one country and have a category for that is very problematic and doesn't make much sense. 3. Triangulation problem seems to make sense. There is no need to have a poor category when three other categories will be much more accurate (see #2 above). Peace. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per suggestions of Good Ol' Factory. I wouldn't mind having this tree to do what John Pack Lambert points out but it's been the prevailing view to not keep such "triple intersections" Mayumashu (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Occuli and others. This is a small triple intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 21 March 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: There is a precedent to keep album categories which only contain redirects, but I don't know one for songs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 18 March 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: Too little content--categories are interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the category contains two subcategories, and across all three there are nearly 40 articles. How is that "too little"? GiantSnowman 14:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There are not 40 articles: there are a few articles and a bunch of redirects to those same articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the categories are not interlinked, as far as I can see. If the songs and albums categories were interlinked, then I would have no objection to deletion; but navigation would be impaired by deletion at the moment. – FayenaticLondon 20:09, 25 March 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:Academic degrees of the United States[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.
The result of the discussion was:withdrawn (non-admin closure). Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of Category:Academic degrees by country. Clearly, higher education is a very broad topic, and articles about individual degrees likely to get lost; they should be moved from the general category to the specific, not the reverse.- choster (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Makes sense. Withdrawing delete proposal. I added the degree "level" articles (Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, etc.) that are used in the U.S. to this category and, in some cases, removed them from other categories above or below in hierarchy. I still think there might be some overlaps or gaps that aren't handled correctly, but it needs someone to plot out the whole tree. It could also be more useful, instead of just having the "level" articles under the country, to have the specific degrees, like Siviløkonom and Master of Fine Arts. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:07, 22 March 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:Rename. The article is at The Law Society but I am expecting that users will want to disambiguate this category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support overly ambiguous, so the category would need constant maintenance, therefore rename it to be unambiguous. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It is called "The Law Society" all others are Foo Law Society or Law Society of Foo. However, the correct capitalisation would seem to be Category:Presidents of The Law Society. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename' per nom, we need to distinguish this from other societies with the same name in the category. Categories with ambiguous names like this need disambiguation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 21 March 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:Barbary Coast Trail Neighborhoods and Landmarks[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.
Keep: This should be kept. Why should this be deleted, but other ones like Categories like the California Trail and Oregon Trail aren't? Why not just change the name to Category:Barbary Coast Trail? FriscoKnight(talk) 9:45, 17 March 2013 (PCT)
You're comparing this short, 15-year-old 4-mile pathway to the cross-continent 19th-century Oregon and California Trails? Seriously? Anyway, if you compare the contents of Category:Oregon Trail and Category:California Trail to the contents of this category, you should notice some definite differences. Are you perhaps confusing categories with articles? I am not proposing that Barbary Coast Trail be deleted, and there is no list of sites along the trail in that article, which is probably what should have been done. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 15-year-old trail is based on something that happened around the 19th-century as well. Why not? And yes, I'm proposing changing the name of this category by cutting out "Neighborhoods and Landmarks" FriscoKnight (talk) 7:18, 18 March 2013 (PCT)
delete and maybe include a list of landmarks in the trail's article. The scope of material which this category presumes to include is impressive: everything about Alcatraz, everything about the California Gold Rush, and so forth. By all evidence in the article the trail isn't old; it's simply a thematic walk past/through a group of attractions which indeed don't seem to have a lot of historical connection to each other. It isn't as though you can see the wheel ruts left by the passing wagons. These sites are already sufficiently categorized by their location (everything is within San Francisco). Mangoe (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (duplicate !vote struck) Yeah, everything on here is in the San Francisco, California. However, both the Trail's website and pocket do not mention certain landmarks that is along the way. That's why I created this category. FriscoKnight (talk) 9:59 am (PCT)
If they aren't mentioned, then how do you have a reliable source for including them in this category? If you couldn't put them in a list in the article, you certainly can't justify the categorization either. Mangoe (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on the Trail several times because I live in San Francisco. I just use Google Map to see where certain landmarks are. FriscoKnight (talk) 12:06 pm (PCT)
Keep per user FriscoKnight's opinion.--Soroboro (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. So this was created to add landmarks along the way that are not part of the Barbary Coast Trail? So anything that could be seen from the trail would be included? That makes inclusion subjective. Since the article includes the items that are a part of the trail, exactly why do we need this category? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a walking tour of part of SF sponsored by the museum but from what I can tell operated privately. You can't get a list of what's on the tour from anywhere except publications from the tour group. I find the notability of the whole thing at best borderline: the only independent references are other tour guides like Frommer. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some landmarks that the website and pocket guide are on the trail officially but aren't seen physically, like Lotta's Fountain and the Old Ship Saloon. FriscoKnight (talk) 9:08 pm (PCT)
I put that catergory there because I see it more as an associate to the Trail, as we can see Alcatraz Island from the walk. (talk) 9:04 am (PCT)
Jeez, that is getting awfully removed. The island is not on the Trail, but you can see it from the trail, so we categorize the wardens that worked in a prison that was located on the island in a category that has to do with the Trail. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, Lotta's Fountain geographically isn't on the trail, but technically and histically it's included. (talk) 3:47 pm (PCT)
Which thus demonstrating a major problem with this category (amongst several). Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OCAT; a list in the article would be better. If the category is kept, it will need to be pruned; these are excessive. – FayenaticLondon 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then delete -- This is in the nature of a performance by performer category. Anyway, it appears to be a misnomer: historically, the Barbary coast is that or north Africa fromn Tunisia to Morocco, the region occupied by Berbers. User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Barbary Coast, San Francisco was named after that region. FriscoKnight(talk) 3:42 21 March 2013 (PCT)
It's name after it because of the crimes happened during that time period. FriscoKnight(talk) 7:01 pm (PCT)
Delte This looks like an attempt to get wikipedia to endorse one person's original reasearch. A persons unpublished person experience with a trail is original research, and not a reliable source useable in wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 21 March 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; it not clear if this is for writers who are Judeo-Christian or writers whose subject is something to do with "Judeo-Christian". I love the edit summary upon creation: "JC writers has almost 1.5 million google hits". Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Do we really want a category that includes essentially every European writer who lived between 1000 and 1700? Mangoe (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was expecting this to contain all the Jewish and Christian writter categories, but since it is being used for something else, I do not think we have widespread support for it as a recognized term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vague, overly broad inclusion criteria, also per mango: like "living people" its too big to be useful as a navigation aid, but only as a administrative cat, which its not.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I cannot believe that this is a useful category. Judeo-Christian is a useful term, but far too wide-ranging to provide a manageable category, except possibly as a very high level container category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 22 March 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.
Done Makes sense. Withdrawing delete proposal. I added the degree "level" articles (Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, etc.) that are used in the U.S. to this category and, in some cases, removed them from other categories above or below in hierarchy. I still think there might be some overlaps or gaps that aren't handled correctly, but it needs someone to plot out the whole tree. It could also be more useful, instead of just having the "level" articles under the country, to have the specific degrees, like Siviløkonom and Master of Fine Arts. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)