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; no need to merge. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. While it is notable that these women won the Turing Award, there is no appreciable difference between being a female Turing laureate and a male Turing laureate that justifies maintaining a separate category. The two members, both of whom are still also in Category:Turing Award laureates, are both adequately categorized as female without this category as well. The lead article for the award notes these two women (and the third female winner) in the lede so the information is readily available. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since contents are already in the main award. We should not split awards by gender, except when there are actually different awards for each gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to split out women, even for a major award. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 4 November 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: The Coffee Party doesn't seem to be going anywhere. With only the parent article and articles on the two co-founders, I think this fits WP:SMALLCAT. Is it speculative to say this movement is more or less dead? Perhaps. But I think it's more speculative to say it's going to expand to the point where SMALLCAT won't be a problem anymore. I'd like to see this deleted without prejudice towards recreation if the topic ever gets to the point where it can support more articles. BDD (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category with little likelihood of growth. No prejudice toward re-creation should the Coffee Party sweep the next election cycle. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:56, 3 November 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.
Upmerge - to the Women computer scientist and American computer scientist parents. Fragmentary nationality category, not needed for the single article. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Computer science is a field where women do as well as men; I am not sure that female categories are needed at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 4 November 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:Gibraltarian football biography stubs[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. Only 5 articles in the perm cat. Since there are less than 100 articles tagged for all notable Gibraltarian people, and the country is missing an overarching sport bio stub category, propose deleting this football bio category and upmerging template until about 60 related articles found. Dawynn (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As creator (who was not informed of this), size is not an issue. People have to use the template to add to it and since this is relatively new and I do not have much involvement in Gibraltarian football, of course it's going to have a few articles in it. It is a valid cat and all it requires is people who are more into Gibraltarian football to use it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move I would support moving or creating a new category of Gibraltarian Athletes maybe, but one specifically for soccer players is unneeded in a small country.Mike (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid category. The country plays their first officially sanctioned match on 19 November 2013, after which there will be 11 players (at least!) considered notable for an article. There is no point in deleting this category when it would have to be re-created in 3 weeks. And no, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here. GiantSnowman 09:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While Category:Gibraltar international footballers would be a valid category in three weeks, I doubt there will be 60 biographical stub articles related to Gibraltan football anytime soon, which is what is required by the guidelines. The same templates for Andorra, Faroe Island, Liechenstein, Monaco and SanMarino populates Category:European football biography stubs and not some separate country-category. The same should be done in this case. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly valid category that will see a significant boost in population in a few weeks. No sure where the "60 related articles" benchmark is from. Is there any consensus for this on a wider basis?Fenix down (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines for stub categories have stated ideal category size at about 100 - 300, and allowed category size between 60 - 800 for years. It's a matter of balancing being helpful to the community vs maintaining a large number of categories by a very small amount of volunteers. I have no contention against having the template, but the template can easily exist, while being upmerged to a more general category. In this case, given the ideal category size, we barely have enough total Gibraltarian biographical articles tagged to fill a stub category -- let alone sports players in general, or (as in this case) players for one particular sport. Dawynn (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the category, keep the upmerged template. As Dawynn has pointed out, stub-categories should have atleast 60 members. Template:Faroes-footy-bio-stub is a similar template without its own category. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - changed opinion based on Dawynn's observations. Was not aware of these guidelines. Fenix down (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to a footy stub-cat and a Gibraltar one. It is far too small a polity to need much in the way of a stub-cat-tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 4 November 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 small - has just two articles and a subcat. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 11:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I think the problem is with having the songs subcategory (which should anyway be "hymns by"). We certainly do not neet two categorises for her. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 4 November 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:WP:OC#SMALL. There is only 1 article in the category and expansion is unlikely. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 07:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom as it makes sense Mike (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and shake head disgustedly at the quality of the sole article. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:30, 30 October 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. Small eponymous category. Text of the articles links everything together. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:40, 30 October 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:no consensus. It's depressing that there is still no consensus on the question of "how big is big enough" for categories of this type.Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Way too small for an eponymous category - only contains a redirect and a handful of subcats. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – 1 subcat is not enough, 2 are marginal, 3 or more have been thought sufficient at cfd since around 2009. (This has 4 subcats.) Oculi (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the material does not justify an eponymous category since the material is not of such volume and complexity that categorization significantly improves navigation. One of the sub-cats, for the band of which this guy is a member, is kind of bogus categorization anyway. Since every album and every song is pretty much automatically placed in a "Albums/Songs by Foo" category, simple sub-category counting strikes me as an extremely simplistic way of decision-making. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jerry Pepsi. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:45, 1 November 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: Category takes a large, functional category and attempts to replace it with a region specific one for one specific article. Mike (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a small and unnecessary splitting of the main category. WP:TROUT the nominator for emptying the category out-of-process (single article has been restored). Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Emptying categories in the course of nominating them for deletion is verboten. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really can you cite a source please? Mike (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See para 2 of WP:CFD: "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision.".
If you think about this for a moment, anything else would be a nonsense. Why hold a consensus-forming discussion about a proposed action which is already a fait accompli? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well lets think about the logic of this for a second. I create a new category, remove the original category and move the sole article into the new category. How is that not nonsense? Mike (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles in the parent of Category:Women computer scientists, so it wasn't the "sole" article. In general, once a category is nominated for deletion, it should not be empty; it is permissible to remove entries which obviously and uncontroversially don't belong, but if someone disagrees they should be kept until the nomination ends. It is also permitted to add new entries to the category while it is being discussed - in other words, you can build up, but not tear down. This is just long standing practice, and is documented as BHG pointed out. I don't think there's anything "nonsense" about it - there are many other analogues to this category (see American women novelists for example), so the creator was doing the right thing in good faith by starting to populate it; it's just I (and others) think in this particular case the cat is not needed. That said, if someone wants to fill it up while we are discussing it that would be no problem - if the category is merged, those entries will be sent back automatically.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge back to the women cs parent cat; these leaves violate bottom rung rules. This is especially ironic as I'm quite sure these women computer scientists would be appalled at the inefficiency from a data perspective of creating intersection categories vs calculating same dynamically. If we want to just show women + nationality we can do so easily with category intersection links - see Category:Albanian film actors for an example - no new categories required.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment We should also ensure there is no ghettoization going on with the top-level "women" category - this link shows you how to calculate this ghettoization dynamically.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:32, 1 November 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. Unnecessary eponymous category holding minimal content per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, which are already in more appropriate on-topic categories (albums and songs) and easily linkable from the subject article. The two subcats can be interlinked to one another as well. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:35, 30 October 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.
