Category:Converts from Christianity to agnosticism or atheism[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: Conversions are toward a religion. Agnosticism and atheism are not religions DVdm (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator. One does not "convert" to atheism or agnosticism, which implies a formal process; one simply ceases to hold a previous religious belief. RolandR (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zero substance to the deletion rationale, complete strawman. Definition of convert per Wiktionary : "To undergo a conversion of religion, faith or belief"; other dictionaries have exactly the same, none say you can't convert to irreligion. Google shows that the phrase "converting to atheism" or similar is already used in hundreds of Wikipedia articles; ditto for the media in general. We even have an article about them, List of converts to nontheism. This nomination and your attempted mass removal of this category before even starting the CfD are a clear case of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That Wiktionary entry is circular. "Convert" = "To undergo a conversion of religion, faith or belief", which is not applicable to agnosticism and atheism, as these are lacks of religion, faith or belief.
Delete per nom. Ceasing to believe in imaginary friends or never having believed is not a "conversion".Charles (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Apostasy (the more accurate name for this) from childhood religion, unless it involves someone prominently religious (which on a quick look doesn't apply to anyone here), isn't really notable. We can argue at length about how atheism actually functions (or not) as a religion in some respects, and whether agnosticism fits, but to me this is more the determining factor. Mangoe (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:OCEGRS has the general principle which, when applied to this case, states that this category should only be created if reliable sources recognize "Converts from Christianity to agnosticism or atheism" as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. That does not apply. Further, WP:BLPCAT has the principle that a living person should only be classified as a "convert from X to Y" if they have self-declared as such. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Relevant definitions: Conversion: "a spiritual enlightenment causing a person to lead a new life [syn: {rebirth}, {spiritual rebirth}]"; Apostasy: "An abandonment of what one has voluntarily professed; a total desertion of departure from one's faith, principles, or party; esp., the renunciation of a religious faith; as, Julian's apostasy from Christianity". —PaleoNeonate – 12:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Category:Christian apostates would be cleaner, although I'm still not sure if this is appropriate as it would mostly be a specific Christian POV and religion is rarely a black-and-white phenomenon: someone may have been raised Christian and not be interested to remain in the faith yet may still hold to some Christian values such as Jesus's love message, etc. Various Christian groups have their own criteria for members to be called apostates (to the Jehovah's Witnesses it could be someone who criticizes a certain aspect of the official doctrines, like not celebrating birthdays). —PaleoNeonate – 15:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: so it comes down to who are the "true Christians", who are apostates (the officially excommunicated?) etc. Very subjective and contentious. —PaleoNeonate – 15:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... Christian apostates sounds a bit contradictory, almost silly even . And yes, again, not being a category-person I'd say, let's just dump it. - DVdm (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is that since agnosticism and atheism are not formally organized, there is no formal rite of conversion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But Christianity is organised and can say when somebody apostatises. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not sufficient, since a Christian sect or denomination could describe as an "apostate" someone who never accepted their beliefs in the first place; ie, the unsupported statement of a Christian group that a certain person is/was an apostate is not in itself a reliable source. RolandR (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. G5 applies here. Katietalk 19:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment on parallel categories We also have Category:Former Christians which is somewhat parallel to this. It is a bit of a mess because (a) spot checks on some articles do not support the categorization, and (b) people have tried to subdivide it so that it contains, for instance, Category:Former Protestants. The problem there is that a number of the former Prots are present Catholics, so they are certainly not former Christians (regardless of some of the more extreme reformer rhetoric). In any case there seems to be a lot of cross-membership and the same question as to whether people who simply didn't continue in religion in which they were reared are notable for that. Mangoe (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing at these. The naming is better; as you say they are still not free of problems, especially considering the BLP context. —PaleoNeonate – 20:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - there is no formal process of "converting" to agnosticism or atheism (as they are not organized religions) so this category is pretty useless. Also there are people who are culturally Christian but spiritually don't believe in a higher power so there's a whole other can of worms right there. Also Category:Converts from Islam to agnosticism or atheism should also be co-nominated on similar logic. On the proposed apostate categories we already have Category:Former (Insert Religion) so theres no need for that in my opinion. Good day. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:14, 9 September 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:Musical groups inspired by The Simpsons[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.
Delete per nom. This is split between bands whose only connection to The Simpsons was taking their name from either a Simpsons character or a line of dialogue in one episode, and bands for whom the connection is entirely unestablished since the category declaration itself is the only incidence of the word "Simpsons" anywhere in the entire article. So it's not WP:DEFINING for any of them. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME. Having a list of band names influences by the series is fine in a list or article, but doesn't define the band like genre does. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a trivial characteristic grouping not reflecting anything about the music of the group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vague, trivial, and in many cases not verifiable. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:29, 9 September 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:High school basketball venues in Louisiana[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:merge to Category:Basketball venues in Louisiana. There is certainly a consensus against keeping this category as is, and the most substantially represented alternative is the proposed merge. bd2412T 01:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: No need for distinction based on level of basketball played. Nearly all of these venues are already in the destination category as it is. TM 12:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are already venue distinctions based on levels of basketball played. Not just basketball, but sports as a whole. There are categories for NBA arenas, college basketball arenas, etc... Same with football, baseball, soccer and many other sports. Your suggestions would require us to undone all of those categories in theory. High school basketball is played in all 50 states and U.S. territories. If anything, this level of sports venues is underrepresented in Wikipedia. In addition, there are many pages that fall under multiple categories such as this one. This category has 14 entries and needs to be kept. Spatms (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clicked on three articles (Smoothie King Center, Gold Dome (Centenary), and Burton Coliseum. All three are described as multi-purpose centers that, sure, include HS basketball in their bookings along with home shows, political rallies, rock concerts, etc. The individual rentals aren't defining like a purpose built NBA stadium is. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge/keep There is a need for distinctions on levels of sports. It's a basic component in sports, which is why this category shouldn't be merged. Many arenas have multiple purposes, so I feel this shouldn't have an effect on merging this category.Annieann1 (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Sports venues in Louisiana, articles in this category simply belong in a general (multi-purpose) sports venues category, please don't add all possible individual sport categories to them. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't change the fact that multiple sports are played at the same venue. That is how almost all sports venues are utilized in the U.S. You would then have to change thousands of sports venues in the U.S. to a multi-purpose arena/stadiums in one category. There needs to be clarification or Wikipedia would become unorganized and chaotic. There are 14 venues under this category and it's valid that all are high school basketball venues. You can't change that fact and it should be kept.Spatms (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, anyway since these are multi-purpose venues they shouldn't be in a separate high school usage category. Hence merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Sorry, I should have been clearer in my previous comment. I agree with you about these not being in a separate high-school category, but your suggestion would also remove them from Category:Basketball venues in Louisiana. Cheers, -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:21, 17 September 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:Ice hockey teams in Baton Rouge, Louisiana[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.
Dual Upmerge for Now Having one team doesn't aid navigation but no objection to recreating later should more emerge. @Namiba: I made a friendly edit to your nomination, above. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:07, 4 September 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:upmerge without prejudice against having the Asian monarchs by century categories diffused by subcontinent. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge all to parent Non-diffusing of parent for some reason and only contains a few entries. The parent is sufficient. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all -- I had to look hard to find that the main article should be Khan of Kalat. This was a small sovereign, sometimes quasi-sovereign state in south Asia (now Pakistan). Asia is a big place, so that one category for Asian monarchs is taking it too high. I so not think that diffusing this by century is useful, so that my targets would be Category:Khans of Kalat and Category:17th-century rulers in South Asia or Category:17th-century rulers in India. They were subject to the Moghul Emperors and then to the British Raj, before Pakistan independence. This was one of the plethora of internally autonomous princely states in India. I am suggesting South Asia as a neutral term, as "India" suggests the present republic. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge not enough to justify diffusion by century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 5 September 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:delete. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep (WP:OCEPON trumps the total article count) There are nested subcats in this cat with a couple of dozen articles among them. The article count is far above smallcat thresholds for keeping category. --Mark viking (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer to WP:OCEPON. I understand your deletion rationale now and agree with it. I am changing my recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The five article criterion is arbitrary, and in practice amounts to: Articles relating to this author have been successfully sorted into aubcats. *Most* of the categories in Category:Wikipedia categories named after speculative fiction writers have 2 to 6 articles; those that have many more show signs of either more subcats (as with Anderson or Asimov) or overenthusiastic categorization (as with Verne). The difference between four and five is pointless. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 13:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an obvious, and missing, page; it would not be difficult to add two or three more, and two or three articles which would be added if they existed - as they should. Beyond that, we should start thinking about more subcats. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reverted the addition of Lavinia to this category since Lavinia (novel) is already in the works subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That a different article is in a different category is a strange reason not to categorize Lavinia in this one. That won't help someone who navigates by category. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 16:17, 12 September 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:delete. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now I'm actually surprised there isn't more content here but this category doesn't have enough articles to aid navigation yet; delete per WP:SMALLCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete A total of less than a dozen articles actually in this category, or any of its subcats, most of them linked to from her own article. Given that we have categorized articles on most of her major works, this is not likely to increase soon. If we are going to spend the bytes on any of these discussions, this is a case for deletion. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 20:26, 6 September 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.
Keep but PurgeB. D. Hyman should be removed (since we shouldn't confuse this with a family cat) but that still leaves 7 articles and my cutoff for WP:SMALLCAT is 5. (I'd also be open to creating a more narrow category instead of Works about Bette Davis but there is a group of articles her that readers are likely to want to navigate between.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:00, 4 September 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.
@Koavf and CravinChillies: Out of curiosity, what is the standard for having a category about a person? This one has 3 pages and a subcategory with 4 more. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: See WP:EPON. For me, the defining feature is how many subcategories a category has. If Judith Butler had written 1,000 books but there were still only three articles in Category:Judith Butler that wouldn't justify its existence. The purpose of the category named after the author is to bring together several disparate articles and categories in one place. But this just has a very small amount of content which is probably all easily navigated from one another. To think of it a different way, go to Category:Books by Judith Butler. You will see that it is subcategorized as a child of Category:American books by writer. It would not be helpful to go to the 350+ categories in there and create an eponymous one for each one of them. Only for a handful of those writers are there going to be enough articles and more importantly, enough articles which will not be easily navigated from one another to really justify making categories by a person's name. For another for instance, see how there is Category:Bono but not Category:Adam Clayton because there are a lot of different types of content related to Bono that simply don't exist for Adam Clayton. They are both just as legitimate of musicians and both members of the same band but one has a lot of content that the other doesn't. Sometimes it can be tricky to figure out if an eponymous category should be created. As one last example, if I were to create a category named after a band, my bare minimum is three subcategories (usually [x] albums, [x] members, and [x] songs) but really five is best ([x] album covers, [x] audio samples]). Go to Category:Albums by artist and you will see that there are over 17,000. No way is it helpful to create 17,000 categories which are just a band's name and then the subcategory [x] albums. Does that make sense? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Just to add a little more to what @Koavf: said, WP:OCEPON goes into some detail about the standards. For background, there have been a lot of eponymous biography categories that are a grab-bag of loosely related articles: a hometown, a company they worked at, a concept many people contributed to, a brother. Also, in many of these nominations, the more generic WP:SMALLCAT also comes into play, which is a standard which I find frustratingly vague. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now I'm not sure if Gender policing or Performativity are so defined by Ms. Butler that they should be under her eponymous category. (If they were, would that lead to category clutter where those article would be under a variety of feminist and gender scholars?) Even if they belong, that leaves 3 articles and my arbitrary cutoff for WP:SMALLCAT is 5. No objection to recreating if/when more content appears.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not enough material at this time to justify an eponymous category, and I do not think it is a good idea to start categorizing broad concepts/topics such as social construction of gender and gender policing by people who contributed to the topic. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:27, 11 September 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.
Delete for Now per WP:SMALLCAT since it doesn't currently aid navigation but no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:54, 4 September 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.
Keep New Orleans is a major U.S. city and as a major U.S. city, this category matches other major U.S. cities regarding ice hockey teams. One can also not say for certain if New Orleans will get new ice hockey teams soon as we are not privy to any discussions regarding this matter. This category should be kept just like other similar categories in Wikipedia regarding ice hockey teams and major U.S. cities.Spatms (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spatms: In 1,000 years, maybe it will be a small city and Richmond, Indiana will be a huge one with lots of ice hockey teams. We can't make categories like this--see WP:CRYSTAL. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Upmerge Per Cravin Chillies. If and when New Orleans has more articles to add to this category we can revisit but, right now, it doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:39, 4 September 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 11. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)