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.
There are 98 references on interlocking directorates in EBSCOhost under academic search complete. Where would you like me to add inline edits and citations to more clearly define the category? Oceanflynn (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Defining the meaning of the category isn't the (main) issue. DexDor(talk) 06:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, WP:DEFINING states: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sourcescommonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. DexDor's rationale for the category's deletion is essentially questioning whether being an "interlocking directorate" is sufficiently important to the subjects of the articles in the category, and whether there are enough articles for which that is true to have a category for them. —烏Γ(kaw), 05:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the problem is that the article ExxonMobil makes no mention of directorates, interlocking or otherwise, and so the category is not supported by the article. This is very far from defining for a company. Oculi (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Oculi. —烏Γ(kaw), 05:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a completely impossible category. In UK it is common for an executive director of one public company to sit on the board of another as a non-executive director; and I think this is widespread elsewhere. It might be possible to have a category concerned with the concept and legislation directly regulating this. However, to categorise companies because they have interlocking directorates is going too far: it has all the problems of performance categories. Furthermore, several of the articles seem to be about trade bodies, of which companies in the trade will be members, with representatives of some sitting on the board. This will be a wonderful category for conspiracy theorists, who regard any association as evidence of companies working together as a cartel: but that is not the real world that we will in! Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 24 October 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: Clearer title. Note: Not only is Navy Corrections and Programs a redlink, but none of the 3 articles in this category use the term. Alternatives (e.g. "United States Navy prisons" or "Prisons of the United States Navy") could also be considered. After the rename the category would be moved under Category:Military prisons in the United States. DexDor(talk) 21:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with that as well. DexDor(talk) 06:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if Kept/Upmerge Only 3 articles and my cutoff is 5. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 24 October 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: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one biography. It's not likely that the category will be further populated any time soon, since article Marseille does not even mention the existence of the viscounty in its history section. No need to upmerge the category to its other parent Category:Occitan nobility since the article is already lower in that tree, as a member of Category:House of Baux. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. I am far from sure that this is in fact a title of nobility, as opposed to an office to which a person was appointed. In any event, a single member category is not helpful. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:30, 24 October 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: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, the nominated category only contains a child category, and also because basically everything of New Netherland is history, as it merely existed in the 17th century, so it's little use to have a separate history child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. There is a bewildering array of categories for New Netherland. For every article, it's necessary to mine through 5 layers of categories to get to it. This is excessive. Millennia in New Netherland? Seriously? Serious pruning is necessary for the entire structure. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree on that, let's treat this nomination as merely a first step. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 22 October 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.
keep per Andy. Obviously 'music featuring violin' would be silly, but there are only a handful of tracks featuring the Mellotron and it's useful to know them, IMO. Peter Damian (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I appreciate the valid comments and opposition raised by Andy Dingley and Peter Damian, if this cateogory exists (and there is nothing here which can't be rolled back to the Mellotron article), then why not songs featuring drums, or songs featuring acoustic, songs featuring guitars, or songs featuring <make of guitar>, songs featuring vocalists and a whole song by instrumentation categorization scheme. You know it will happen! --Richhoncho (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I explained this above. 'Songs featuring guitar' would be absurd, because there are so many. But Mellotron songs are rare. As for 'make of guitar', this does not define the song because it is difficult to discern from the sound. Peter Damian (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not a personal opinion? For me, the sound of a mellotron uniquely characterizes a song. Peter Damian (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not truly defining. A characteristic of a song doesn't make it defining. Defining would be where in most sources which discuss the song, a mention of the use of the mellotron would be mentioned as well. One would also expect to see in something in the opening sections of articles such as "Strawberry Fields Forever". --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have, here, not only no Mellotron, but no Lennon or other Beatle. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/listify, not defining but a likely search. Siuenti (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify Not defining but may be of interest to some readers. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename. A song can be arranged to be played on any number of instruments. 'Recordings featuring Mellotron' would make more sense. --Michig (talk) 15:30, 1 November 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: speedily deleted (C1: Empty category) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Keith Sequeira is an Indian model and VJ. It is unlikely that there will be sufficient articles referring to him to merit an entire category. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:27, 20 October 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:delete. The main article, which needs work, includes a list anyway. The category was added to the pages on top of existing categories, so there is no need to merge back. – FayenaticLondon 23:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with fuzzy boundaries. The BBC says 'There is no comprehensive list of "ancient" grains'.[1]Siuenti (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maybe we need to read more scholarly sources to decide these things. One can read those at here. Not every grain is "ancient grain" but list is limited list. Nominator has provided "half statement" from given BBC link, I will complete it, "There is no comprehensive list of "ancient" grains, but the category is generally agreed to include amaranth, barley, bulgur, buckwheat, kamut, millet, spelt, teff and quinoa." So there is "consensus" within scholarly community regarding this list. Also read above sources I have mentioned. --Human3015TALK 13:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what the BBC means is some grains have consensus but not all of them. The sources which I can see online don't appear to have a clear definition of what "ancient grain" means and seem to have different lists to the BBC, for example including chia. Siuenti (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there is no clear definition available, this isn't a list we should have. If there is no official list, this is just original research. Mdann52 (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdann52: does categories depends on "official lists"? --Human3015TALK 15:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All articles currently in this category are mentioned as "ancient grains" in reliable sources. What is OR in it? I wonder why people do not read sources before commenting. --Human3015TALK 15:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on deleting the category, but a list article should definitely be allowed, since a list gives the opportunity to provide more details on how ancient it actually is. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Usually WP:SUBJECTIVECAT exists because there is not a main article, but this category has one but the definition seems a little too open ended and subjective. If this nomination passes, we should probably also look at Category:Heirloom tomato cultivars. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 24 October 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: New category created just today. Only has a few people in it, of various nationalities. Extremely vague category open to interpretation—see WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:TRIVIALCAT. —Cliftonian(talk) 09:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not clear what an exapansionist is, someone who blows up balloons? someone who operates an Expansion engine? Wayne Jayes (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep 8 whole minutes after cat creation? How did you get through all the discussion with the category creator in just that time? Oh, I see. You didn't.
I'm sorry, Andy, I wasn't aware one was supposed to discuss with the category creator first. I followed the instructions at WP:CFD. I see on reviewing that it is listed there, but I evidently didn't read it properly and so missed it. So I hold my hands up, I got that wrong and you're correct to upbraid me for it. Sorry about that—I've now notified the creator at User talk:Leevebedrocht.
I'm afraid I still don't quite get why you think you should keep the category, though. Who decides what an "expansionist" is? (see WP:SUBJECTIVECAT.) Is it really worth having this vague, amorphous category for expansionists of all stripes, allegiances and eras? Rhodes and Kahane in the same category? (see WP:TRIVIALCAT.) —Cliftonian(talk) 18:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination is firstly that it's so vague you don't understand what an "expansionist" might be. Now you're arguing that in your opinion, Rhodes and Kahane don't belong together. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In whose opinion do they belong together? —Cliftonian(talk) 19:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subjective, ambiguous as it relates to individuals. Neutralitytalk 03:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems WP:POINTy but it's WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:OR. I'm surprised someone hasn't added either Hitler to the cat to make these folks seem bad or Lincoln to make them seem good. But alas, that's subjectivity for you... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too vague in scope. I am not sure that most if the people actually fit the main article! Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 24 October 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.
