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: We have never categorised footballers by the Cup they have played in - league, yes, but not Cup WP:OVERCAT. GiantSnowman 19:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:53, 30 March 2020 (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.
Support this merger for the rationale given, but I also want to raise the question whether we should have "medieval Iraqi" at all. During the medieval period, there was a region called ʿIrāq ʿArabī ("Arabian Iraq") for Lower Mesopotamia, and ʿIrāq ʿAjamī ("Persian Iraq") for the region now situated in Central and Western Iran, but how many editors would know that? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2020 (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. – FayenaticLondon 18:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to the only article (Masaru Emoto), he said that human consciousness has an effect on the molecular structure of water. I think this falls under chemistry rather than physics. This category is WP:SMALLCAT anyway. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The article on Masaru Emoto describes his (now discredited) theory, which is cognate with the two articles in the target (which also relate to water). BTW, I was taught about the structure of water in the final year of my BSc in Chemistry, so that that seems an appropriate subject. Since all three articles concern water, an alternative might be to merge both to Category:Scientific controversies concerning water. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Pseudoscientific physicists per Oculi. The first in-line quotation in the article about Emoto's ideas regards the physical structure of water, so I'm assuming this is about pseudo-physics rather than pseudo-chemistry. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oculi. If Emoto's theory were notable, it would have its own article. It doesn't. If and when it does (and survives the deletion discussion that will no doubt follow), we can revisit whether physics or chemistry or pseudoscience is the best place to put such an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2020 (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.
