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: Main article Ratchet (music genre) is up for deletion. "Ratchet" is not real genre of music and all the artists added to this category was done in WP:OR. STATicmessage me! 19:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as subcategory which fails notability. Quis separabit? 20:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that African-Americans in rachet music are a distinct cultural phenomenon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2014 (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:Speedy deletion as a page created in defiance of a block. However, please feel free to create a new Category:Transport in Jalpaiguri if you think it appropriate. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency .As per the norm for Indian cities . Shyamsunder (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2014 (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:Visitors' Attractions in Jalpaiguri City[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:Speedy deletion as a page created in defiance of a block. However, please feel free to create a new Category:Visitor attractions in Jalpaiguri if you think it appropriate. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2014 (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:Stake presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[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:delete. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a notable enough office, and too redundant a category, to justify a category. The people in this category meet the GNG for things other than being stake president, either by rising to higher office in the LDS Church, or by being notable in some aspect other than religion. Since nearly all of the people in this category are in another LDS category, there is no loss of WP:DEFINING by removing it (the defining characteristic being that they're Mormon, not that they've held a particular office in the Mormon heirarchy). The primary intersect of this category is with the categories concerning area seventies; since most of the stake president articles are about people who served in a seventy, and most people who served in a seventy were stake presidents, the category is not needed. A stake is a relatively small body (3,000-6,000 members); we do not have a corresponding category for a minister and/or lay person who presides over a similar number of adherents of other religions across multiple congregations (for example, a District Superintendent in Methodism). pbp 05:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
deleteThis is exactly as the nominator says. A quick sample showed people high in the LDS hierarchy, and that church's polity guarantees that high level members will also have held these pretty low level offices. I also see a Romney and a Marriott. I did see one person whose claim to notability was being the first stake president in Peru, but seeing as how he had something like eight other LDS categories I don't think we're missing anything by leaving off this one. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I do not vote more positively on LDS issues). Stake (Latter Day Saints) seems to be the equivalent of a diocese in the Anglican or Catholic churches. If so, I would have expected this office to be notable. HOwever my knowledge of LDS is limited. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like a presbytery, though none of these analogies is terribly close. The thing is that these are rotating positions with terms, occupied by lay people. Mangoe (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of number of adherents, dioceses are an order of magnitude larger than stakes. Perhaps the equivalent Catholic unit would be a deanery. pbp 03:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I have not hesistation in voting delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do a fair amount of work in the Latter Day Saint movement area, and I agree that usually this will be a non-defining position that is held. There may be the odd exception to this general rule, but I don't think they are significant enough to warrant a category. There are 345 bio articles in the category and it would be defining for maybe a handful of them. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a stake president does not make one notable, hence no one ought be notable for being one, hence no category can survive the organizational principal that only those notable for being in a category are to be categorized therein (WP:COP#N, so delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a position usually held for at least 8 years, that involves a lot of comittement of time. It is going to be notable to all the people who held it. There are lots of categories we have for things that are not notable. The issue is not notable, but defining, and this is defining to the people involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2014 (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.
