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. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge This is not a significant enough position to justify a seperate category for its holders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While the category has been expanded from one entry to five since this was first listed, it's still not a WP:DEFINING characteristic in the sense that's necessary to justify a category: every single person in here got into Wikipedia for holding some other office higher than the city comptroller (e.g. mayor, state legislator, appointment to a federal position, etc.), and not for the fact of having been comptroller itself. The city comptroller is not a position that would satisfy WP:NPOL if it was the crux of the person's notability, so it's not a role that we should be categorizing them on. Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2015 (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:Hawai'i Championship Wrestling championships[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. MER-C 11:11, 23 August 2015 (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:merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Don't see a need for a small category containing only redirects to the same page which off little to no information about the redirect topics themselves. Best to upmerge in a more all emcompassing category if the redirects are going to exist at all. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:32, 11 August 2015 (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: consistent with parent category; inclusiveness is better than creating more categories. --Dietic (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in fiction we have enough people notable for being gardeners for this category to work. Fictional categories do not need to correspond to real world categories, because paths to notability in fiction are different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2015 (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: consistent with parent category; like OB/GYN, both are technically separate but frequently overlapping disciplines; inclusiveness is better than creating more categories. --Dietic (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This lacks a realworld counterpart, so there is no justification at all, even a weak one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2015 (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:keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator)I don't think it should be deleted. There are six pages in the category, plus I'm planning to add the X-Rated Ambition documentary. --JAEVI (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OCEPON. Whatever the issues when this was nominated, it seems to have enough direct content (court case, documentary, main article, 2 list articles from works subcategories) to aid navigation now. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2015 (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:Pallacanestro Don Bosco Livorno players[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. Superseded by Category:Basket Livorno players (which shouldn't be a subcategory, I don't know how that happened), no players of this incarnation of the club likely to be notable. I'm the sole contributor to the page. ArmstrongJulian (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- My rule on these situations is "one franchise, one category", and this should normally have the present name, even though the players actually played for the team under an earlier name. This is the solution adopted for alumni categories for renamed or merged colleges, etc. I am not sure how to apply that here, if the current players will inevitably be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the one club - one category policy is quite reasonable, I'd just argue that 100% of notable players will come from Basket Livorno and that it would be a more logical implementation as a category (to link similar articles together) to have under the club's entity they played for. That said, it is possible that in future Pallacanestro Don Bosco players would become notable, I'm not sure if there is a technical obstacle but the category could then just be renamed. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete for now. But no objection against recreation of this category once we will have articles about Pallacanestro Don Bosco players. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2015 (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. A purely subjective category. Apparently, only Wikipedia uses "surviving ships" in some generic capacity or for those dating from 1960 (subjectively chosen). Nearly every non-Wikipedia uses are of the "Surviving ships of World War II" or the like, but there is no indication that those pre- vs. post- 1960 is a notable distinction that surviving from pre-1960 is more notable than from say pre-1961 or pre-1959, or any other year one subjectively chooses. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename According to the headnote, it is populated by Template:Surviving ocean going ships, which is going up to 1965. The limit seems to be 50 years ago. Half a century ago is perhaps an appropriate (and not wholly random) boundary. If so, it should be renamed Category:Surviving pre-1965 ocean-going ships. Ships of that age have been commonly specifically preserved, as an outdoor museum or such like. I am not clear how this differs from "Museum ships". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So next year the category would need to be renamed to "... pre-1966 ..." (as well as removing any ships that are no longer surviving)?! DexDor(talk) 05:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The category text "has substantially survived to this day (such as the Mary Rose)" stretches the meaning of "substantially survived" so far that I wonder if the Titanic would belong in the category. DexDor(talk) 05:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that any point chosen can be more than arbitrary. Also while living people there are clear reasons to so categorize, it is not clear that non-living things need to have an indication that they still exist in some way in their categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2015 (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:rename. MER-C 11:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: consistent with parent category; inclusiveness is better than creating more categories. --Dietic (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Roles and routes to notability are different in fiction. This is a distinct category and can be left intact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is currently the only category in this category tree which still divides articles by gender. Dimadick (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2015 (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 categorize people as being notable as only notable people should have an article; this is the only "Notable..." category (apart from categories for wikipedians) in en wp. Alternatively, this could be renamed (e.g. to Category:Muslims in the United States). Alternatively, this could be upmerged to Category:American Muslims, but the category creator didn't make this category a child of that one and some/most of the articles in this category don't belong in that one. DexDor(talk) 06:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we have a similar discussion here which is still open, also about a rather vague category related to Muslim terrorism against the United States.
For this new nomination, I agree with nominator that this category shouldn't be merged to Category:American Muslims, perhaps it can be salvaged by renaming it into Category:Muslims on American lists of terrorists or something similar, but I'm not in any way strongly favoring a solution like that. In other words, I'm neutral towards a delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That category was created by the same user. I don't think we should "bend over backwards" to "salvage" a good category from a bad one; it's simpler for the bad one to be deleted and if an editor who understands wp categorization thinks a new category is needed they can create it (either before or after this one is deleted). DexDor(talk) 05:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete This seems to be a category of "Muslims notorious in America", but that's pretty non-defining (or rather, derivative of some other categorization). Seyasirt (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a re-do of Category:American Muslims, otherwise, "in America" seems to be a current category - so when various Muslims come and go, they get put in or taken out for the category. nope. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Repurpose but purge -- I am not sure what Joseph Cummings, who appears to be a Christian engaged in inter-faith relations, is doing in this category. Most of the rest seem to be Category:Muslim terrorists in the United States. We have the 9/11 hijackers, other hijackers, their support staff, the Boston bombers, and a few more, including Osama bin Laden who gave the orders, but was not an American. Several were not Americans, so that a merger to Category:American Muslims, my first thought, would be thoroughly inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That categorization scheme (putting OBL in a US category because he ordered attacks on the US) would put OBL in dozens of categories (see Timeline of al-Qaeda attacks). DexDor(talk) 05:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider that these are mostly not biographies of American people. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be open to a delete or selective upmerge since the actual contents seems to favor terrorists over general Muslim immigrants. In the end though, this category should go away.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively upmerge which is probably functionally delete. Only upmerge to Category:American Muslims those who were in some ways nationals of the US. Others it should be determined they are in the right categoriy for their nationality of expatriates in the US such as Category:Saudi Arabian expatriates in the United States, etc. A few of these people, such as Osama bin Laden I see no evidence in the article that they ever set foot in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a duplicate category to American Muslims. Dimadick (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2015 (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:upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One of two things needs to happen here. I cannot, for the record, find any other reality competition series for which we maintain a dedicated category for the second-place finishers — normal practice is that the winners have a category of their own, while any other competitors who have articles are just categorized as "participants" or "contestants" regardless of whether they finished second, third or fifteenth. In the unlikely event that there was a good reason to keep it, however, the plural form of "runner-up" is "runners-up" and not "runner-ups" — so if this were to be kept, it would need to be renamed to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race runners-up. But I still think the correct solution is to upmerge to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants, given the lack of comparable categories for runners-up of any other comparable television show. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Should we have these categories at all? They seem to be performance by performer categories, which we do not allow. If we keep anything, I think it should be merged to contestants. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom (then consider doing a separate CFD per Peter). DexDor(talk) 05:18, 14 August 2015 (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.
