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:Selective merge where appropriate, then delete. Category:Historians does not have other sub-categories by religion, except for Category:Muslim historians which has already been nominated for discussion at April 21. There does not appear to be scope to convert this to a worthwhile new Category:Historians of Hinduism as few of the current members would evidently fit (R. G. Bhandarkar being one, for his work on history of Vaishnavism, and Malati Shendge is another for her work on Vedic culture, but the rest appear to be mostly political historians). – FayenaticLondon 21:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete historians of Hinduism may be a fine category, but historians who happen to be Hindu is inappropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 10 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 10:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, this is an isolated year category in a tree that is otherwise merely diffused at century level until late in the 19th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- These twig-like categories are a waste of space. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 17 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 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: What else would possibly ever go here? —swpbT 16:44, 8 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: Overly specific confluence. Category does not give any qualification for which chart the song hit #1 on, meaning it could've been any chart whatsoever (for instance, Too Cold at Home (song) reached #1 on the RPM charts in Canada). Ex's & Oh's only got to #10 on the Hot 100, but got to #1 on several secondary charts. And so on. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I can also think of a couple of people who have had more than one Number-one debut singles in the same chart! --Richhoncho (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to the previous CFD for this category, but I support delete per the reasons laid out by Ten Pound Hammer. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not specific enough to compare apples with apples and an odd connection, too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 10 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. Mayors of communities as small as Selma are not automatically notable. So the category isn't a good prospect to grow. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when we actually have five or more articles about mayors of Selma to file in it, but a city doesn't automatically get one of these the moment just one or two former mayors happen to have articles. And as noted, Selma is not large enough that its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability just for the fact of being mayors, if the sourcing wasn't adequate to get them over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders — so even of the two articles that do exist, one of them is teetering on the edge of non-notability too. Note, however, that the articles also need to be upmerged to Category:Mayors of places in Alabama. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 12 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:People who have been placed under house arrest[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. – FayenaticLondon 10:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining. TM 01:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It def. is for some of the people in that category, Aung San Suu Kyi springs to mind, so maybe some of these entries need to be pruned as it's not defining to all of them, but certainly to some. Wow, Lindsay Lohan and Pol Pot in the same group. There's a venn diagram I thought I would never see. LugnutsFire Walk with Me
Agreement with Lugnuts plus nominate what he wrote above for CFD comment of the month. I would have never visualized that either....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too arbitrary to determine for whom this is defining and for whom it's not. Aung San Suu Kyi is well-categorized in the prisoners of conscience tree and in the Burmese prisoners category, based on her example I don't see a big need to diffuse prisoners by location of imprisonment. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)*[reply]
Keep as creator. It's a very ironic form of punishment, and there are many laws and statues governing the practice, at least in the United States. Justice can be interesting some times, and we "Lindsay Lohan and Pol Pot walk into a bar" kind of scenario. --Prisencolin (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a useful point of comparison between Lindsay Lohan and Pol Pot — and even for Aung San Suu Kyi, I'd argue that she was much more strongly defined by being a political prisoner than by having been under house arrest per se, because the fact that she was arrested and imprisoned for her political activity is much more important and defining than whether that imprisonment happened to be in a jail or a house. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people who have been in house arrest combines those for political reasons and those whose money keeps them out of jail. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I suspect it happens to commonly to be noteworthy. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:33, 17 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.
