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: This category was just renamed along with several others from the format "X works" to "Academic works about X" (see CFD May 7). However, unlike many of the others, in this case there is not a corresponding parent Category:Works about sociology. As some of the sub-cats contain films and novels, which are not necessarily academic works, it would be appropriate to drop the word "academic" in this case. Alternatively, I would have no objection if somebody else wanted to spend the time to split the category and its sub-cats between "Works" and "Academic works". – FayenaticLondon 19:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost, but hesitant. Down the category trees there are some few things, like TV shows, that some academics might not call academic, but broadly, the contents all the way down have a academic quality. Even the TV shows and movies tend to be non-fiction or at least historical fiction. A problem with sociology is that is can include everything. See File:Sna_large.png for the illustration. Admittedly, I don't see "Works about sociology" inviting a whole lot of extraneous content. Consistency of the category contents of Category:Works by academic discipline should be considered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Academic works about sociology but remove non-academic content. Sociology at large is a field upon which so much blah blah is written that singling out academic works on the topic is worthy. However, I would remove unrelated content such as the following current subcategories: Works about propaganda, Works about public opinion, Works about race and ethnicity, Works about warfare. These are, at bets, works about society, not sociology. Place Clichy (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 17:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:CRYSTAL. Even if a series of stadia are listed in the accepted bid document, there is still room for the host country to find reason to alter the list. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 15:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category that was recently created to hold people who have the {{Recent birth}} template on them. There's a reason, however, that the template has existed for years without transcluding a category until now; unlike {{Recent death}}, where there's a constant stream of notable people dying daily, newborn infants who are already instantly notable at birth are incredibly few and far between -- basically the only surefire path to a baby even having an article to use the template on in the first place is if mom and dad are royalty, which typically accounts for one, two or very maybe three articles per year at most. And furthermore, the template is only used for the first day or two until the rapid update cycle settles down (frex: Prince Louis of Cambridge, who's still less than three months old as of today, already doesn't have the template or the category anymore), so even in a year when this does get to three royal babies, barring twins born to the same parents it's still relatively unlikely that any two of them would share this category simultaneously with each other. So, to TLDR it, this is a category that is likely to be empty the vast majority of the time, except that once or twice a year it will contain one person for a couple of days before it gets emptied again, which simply makes it unnecessary — it does not need to exist just because Category:Recent deaths does, because we don't have comparable numbers of recent births and recent deaths to process. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and also that being a recent birth is ephemeral and unrelated to the subject's notability. Catrìona (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As this is used to keep track of pages where the "Recent birth" template has been added, so that it can be removed in due course, it would be better to merge to Category:Current events as used by Template:Current. – FayenaticLondon 19:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This sounds as if it may be a useful maintenance category; if so, it should exist but as a talk-page category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice idea, but that won't work here as the template that generates the category is on the article page rather than the talk page. – FayenaticLondon 20:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Good reasoning. Place Clichy (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rarely will a birth be notable, or a person be notable at birth, so it'll never be more than of transitory existence and then only with one or two articles; as per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:59, 18 July 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 15:56, 22 July 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 15:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, it is confusing to have two categories with almost the same title. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. In the absence of a clear rationale explaining the difference between the two, I can see none. Place Clichy (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2018 (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.
Expand abbreviations -- World Economic Forum is a notable international body, so that its awards might be significant enough to escape OCAWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not anything like the Nobel Prize. In the biographies it is merely a side note. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Place Clichy's comment, this does indeed seems like the type of characteristic that is more suited to a list than a category. If kept, rename to Category:Young Global Leaders per the main article. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:51, 1 August 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 15:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Having one variety that is white" is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic, and it's overcategorisation seeing as we don't even have a beans category as a parent. Le Deluge (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although Category:Phaseolus may technically have a white bean, I think it best not to put it in the category because it contains so many varieties. Bod (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, it's hard to tell what exactly constitutes a white bean (Does beige count? What about spotted ones? What makes up a 'bean'). Most importantly, it's not a defining characteristics, and being a 'bean' that could be 'white', while a common collocation, does not make up any kind of scientific category. No such user (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per No such user. We do not currently categorize beans by color, and it would be problematic to do so for the reasons noted above. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:48, 1 August 2018 (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:Kept. Timrollpickering 15:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not convinced that wing leader/commander is a sufficiently high or uncommon designation as to merit a category. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The designation was only used during a brief period of time (1941 through the sixties). However, that period is also the one that involved the majority of notable RAF pilots, due to the Second World War. Many, but not all, of the most notable fighter pilots from the war were at one point wing leaders. It was, in my opinion, a relatively uncommon designation. [1] Consider that there would have been 20+ pilots per squadron, three to five squadrons in a wing, or 60-100 pilots per wing. Many pilots at the rank of wing commander were assigned to noncombat duties, such as planning, tactics, training, commanding an airfield, none of which merits a separate category. But being a wing leader was considered "one of the best jobs in Fighter Command" by Peter Brothers. [2] That was where all the action and glory was, and hence notability. I know that Ian Rose had offered a favorable opinion of establishing such a category during the discussion on the Wing commanders category, and some others seemed to as well. The same reasons for deletion given in that discussion don't apply to this question because we are including everyone who at one point held that role. Catrìona (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: To the Brothers quote above you could add Johnnie Johnson's "The Wing Leader's job was every fighter pilot's dream" (from Dilip Sarkar's The Spitfire Manual); Johnson even called his autobiography Wing Leader despite his time in such roles being a relatively small period in a long career. I created the wing leader article, because it seemed to me a very useful one to have in WP, particularly to contrast it (a position) with wing commander (a rank). Thus a category seems useful to me as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is sufficiently populated. This is the commander of a flying formation. We have recently had a discussion about a rank, where I suggested that if kept it should be used only for those who were not promoted higher, but this is a job, not a rank. If we were dealing with an army, it might be too lowly a position to be notable, but I doubt there were larger operational (flying) commands. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2018 (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/2018 August 10#Category:WEF YGL honorees. ℯxplicit 04:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
