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:Rename. The category really contains articles and categories for the actual meeting houses. There is one article (the main article) and one category on meetings. If this rename happens, those two items can either be moved to the parent Category:Quakerism or allow this category to be recreated for those two items and Category:Quaker meeting houses. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but create new category for buildings as suggested in nomination. (I have tidied up the contents by sub-categorising them by country, which wanted doing anyway, and does not affect the point of this CFD.) - Fayenatic(talk) 07:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you cleaned this up, creating the subcategories is simple and does not need help from a bot to do the heavy work. So I'm happy with a Keep decision and will add the new subcategory and fix up the parent categories. Which I did. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the reworking of this category, inline with the above proposal. It seems a good solution. Zangar (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2011 (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. A one-paragraph article about a novel whose author has no article defeats even the established "categorize all novels by author" scheme. This is hardly To Kill a Mockingbird, which has both a major article and a major article about the author.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unlikely to expand to a useful population Skomorokh 18:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – part of the established Category:Novels by author scheme. Obviously the author is a defining characteristic of a novel. Occuli (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli, and also compare with this. Lugnuts (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly mind if this is kept, but seriously, what is the point in having categories with only one member article? We don't even have an article on the author... Skomorokh 11:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about that lack of a parent article? I can't find it in WP:OC, but this is a criterion that we've used in the past to delete categories, is it not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do think that we should have an article about the author if we are going to categorize by authorship of the author. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:57, 9 June 2011 (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:Keep. This has multiple direct sub-categories; the comparison with deletion of Boticelli does not stand, as that had only one direct sub-category, which remains in place to hold the next tier of sub-categories together; Thackeray had only two. - Fayenatic(talk) 13:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – with 6 subcats (unlike the 2 cited) this is a clear keep. Occuli (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Botticelli had 5 subcats - I don't see 5 & 6 as a substantial difference. Nor do I see a musician being currently in the charts as over-ruling WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, when a major artist isn't entitled to the same treatment. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2011 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. No iteration of a mainstream Spider-Man character that pertains to this series is notable. There is no reason to maintain this category for the single entry. Harley Hudson (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated, no scope for expansion. - Fayenatic(talk) 07:08, 7 June 2011 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. There is no indication that subjects related to the 1994 series will become independently notable so there is no reason to maintain a separate category for the series. Harley Hudson (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, agree on notability and lack of scope for expansion. - Fayenatic(talk) 07:07, 7 June 2011 (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:Fantastic Four television series episodes[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:Merge. No individual episodes of either of these series is ever likely to become individually notable. There is no justification for splitting off two list articles into an "episodes" subcat. Harley Hudson (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the contents are already individually categorised within Lists of episodes. - Fayenatic(talk) 07:06, 7 June 2011 (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:Merge followed by Rename. I'm not seeing any functional difference between being "opposed" to Islam and being "anti-Islam". The article Islamism indicates to me that the term is an acceptable synonym for the purposes of this categorization scheme. A single parent Category:Anti-Islamism appears to me to be appropriate. If the rename fails merging the "opposition to" and "anti" categories still makes sense. Harley Hudson (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is possible to go beyond "anti-Islamism" and be simply "anti-Islam". If I disagree with Islamist terrorists and want to preserve the separation between church and state in a Muslim-majority country, I might be "anti-Islamist", but not necessarily "anti-Islam". But if I go around burning the Koran and saying Muhammad was a pedophile, maybe I'm just "anti-Islam". Some of the articles in Category:Anti-Islam sentiment aren't limited to anti-Islamism, such as Qur'an desecration. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should we make a category "Cateogory:Anti-Islamist"?Curb Chain (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative merge, Oppose rename. As for the rename: although other members of Category:Opposition to religion are "Anti-fooism", the proposed name does not work because Islamism has a meaning that is different from Islam. As for the merge: Category:Anti-Islam sentiment defines itself by Islamophobia, but category membership by that criterion is debatable due to POV, e.g. consider Jihad Watch. Likewise, as for the suggested distinction between opposing Islamism and opposing Islam, I think this would give rise to difficulties in practice. There is already an intermediate Category:Criticism of Islam and I suggest merging Category:Anti-Islam sentiment to that instead. - Fayenatic(talk) 17:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe an article is inappropriately categorized you can remove it without input from the community. Similarly you can add names to the list, with reliable sourcing of course. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename to "Anti-Islam" - I agree with some of the comments above. Let's just mimic the way other "anti-fooism" categories are treated in Category:Opposition to religion. NickCT (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2011 (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.
