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, repurpose and purge. I will remove articles that are not about individuals; where these are not already in a suitable category, I will place them in Category:Alternative education. Note: I have removed some biographies, but not Zappa whose article does prominently mention his activism on this issue; I leave it to others to consider whether this was WP:defining. – FayenaticLondon 17:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What school system? There are thousands of them! This category is too vague to be meaningful. StAnselm (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I edit in this field, but the category as named is vague. If the individual is known as a critic of public schools in the United States (whether opposed to schools or schools as they are), they likely known as "educationists" or some other occupational term, which is a better (and more "defining") category. czar 02:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose and purge -- Many of the people are Category:Advocates of unschooling and homeschooling and this is a prime feature of their careers. That does not apply to Frank Zappa or George Bernard Shaw, though they may have expressed opinions on the subject. It also has a psychologist advocating "alternative education", which would fit. My suggestion is just that: I would welcome alternative suggestions. There does seem to be the basis of a valid category, but I would prefer to see it as what they are for, not what they are against. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename and repurpose as suggested by Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2017 (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:Vietnamese people of Kenyan 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 result of the discussion was:keep. – FayenaticLondon 17:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this isn't any narrower than its sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- An unusual intersection, but a legitimate one. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2017 (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:First generation professional wrestlers[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.
EDITED On second thoughts, I think I will strike my previous comments on this. It's convenient in a way but I'm unsure.★Trekker (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this really for professional wrestlers whose families have never produced any previous professional wrestlers? I took it as referring to professional wrestlers from the first generation of the "sport" (comparable to First generation Dodge Stratus or First generation computer scientists), regardless of their relatives' occupations. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Wrestlers are often categorized or mentioned as "X generation wrestler" because of the overwhelming number of family relations in professional wrestling. Pro wrestling is a very nepotistic and secretive business so it's ended up this way. The artform doesn't really have generations like the ones you mentioned.★Trekker (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Swpb and Shawn in Montreal: Why do we allow second and third generation categories but should we delete first generation wrestlers? Or should the second and third generation categories be deleted as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say second and third make a little more sense since they have pretty specific criteria for inclusion. It makes more sense to define a person by what their parents are as opposed to what their children have done afterwards. It's kind of like with military brats, yes it may sometimes seem inconsequential but if you look a little deeper you see that it more often than not it ends up defining a wrestlers career and life in some way.★Trekker (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend and Marcocapelle: given the answers to your questions, do you wish to offer a view on what should be done? – FayenaticLondon 18:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Handle like the other generations. If the criteria for second- and third-generations are simple, the criteria for first- are equally simple. If Dad were a butcher, but Grandpa helped to pioneer the "sport", whether you qualify as second-generation will also explain whether you're first-generation. I don't quite see the point of any of these categories, but I understand that there might be good reason for them. However, deleting one and keeping the other two seems like a bad idea: delete them all or keep them all. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nyttend: if to be deleted, delete them all together. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2017 (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: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Cleitagora and Megalostrata are, to the best of my knowledge, the only ancient Spartan poets whose names are even known. Barring a miraculous papyrological discovery, the only way this category is going to change is if the articles are either deleted or merged. Category:Ancient Greek women poets is not otherwise subcategorised by region, and there are no more than two poets from any given region in that category. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Too narrow a category to survive. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2017 (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 categories. – FayenaticLondon 18:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I agree that some stub subcategories for sports divers by nationality might be useful, this one is really too small for a stub category and - given that there are only around 15 articles for Norwegian divers in total, stub and non-stub - this one seems like overkill. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 24 April 2017 (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, there is only an eponymous article and a subcat. (Possibly there is room for another subcat with writers of the Quran but they are mentioned in the article anyway.) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have added "see also" links between the member article and the sub-category, to further facilitate navigation between those members. – FayenaticLondon 18:48, 23 May 2017 (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. – FayenaticLondon 18:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains an eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2017 (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.
