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 per WP:IAR and WP:G10. As noted this is subjective and, even if we assume it wasn't created deliberately as an attack category (which given its single occupant and the editing history of its creator, seems rather possible) it would become bait for such without any siginificant encyclopedic value. The BushrangerOne ping only 01:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Whether or not someone is "fat" is subjective. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - attack category and possibly WP:BLP concerns. Otherwise delete as subjective and not a permanent defining characteristic. Athletes may be "fat" during their careers (sumo wrestlers, American football linemen) or may become "fat" after their career ends. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2013 (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:Delete. This category is not about house arrest but rather groups a number of articles about Iranian people. Presumably they are individuals that were placed under house arrest at some point, though many of the articles do not say anything like that. For articles of these people, if they are notable for having been under house arrest, Category:Iranian prisoners and detainees and/or Category:Prisoners and detainees of Iran would be more appropriate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:33, 18 November 2013 (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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I'm not sure why we would want to separate the female Microsoft employees from the male ones. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - no indications that there are fundamental differences between the sexes at Microsoft. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry Pepsi if there are no fundamental differences between the genders then why are there only 15 woman employees out of a total of 207 (189+9+9) MS employees? XOttawahitech (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft has around 25% of female employees overall, which is aligned more or less with the tech sector more generally [1]. There are also around this many CS graduates that are women. In any case, we don't need to divide this at the company level, and I'm not aware of other companies where we've divided employees by gender.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge we don't need this level of separation by gender. You have a valid case for certai jobs+ women but not certain company employees + women, otherwise we'd have to have IBM women employees and yahoo women employees and so on. Merge.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Fails WP:CATGRS on two counts: a) it ghettoises women, and b) I see no(missing word added later) evidence that "Microsoft woman employees" is an encylopedic topic. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No valid or policy-based reason for this to be a seperate category. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge -- there is no reason to believe that women perform better or worse than men employees. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None; AFAICS, the intersection of actors and "people from Montgomery" is trivial, and if nominated I would support merging Category:Actors from Montgomery, Alabama to Category:Actors from Alabama and Category:People from Montgomery, Alabama, and similarly upmerging the gendered subcats to the state level. But that category is not being discussed here, so it is irrelevant to this discussion. So I will ask again about the subject of this discussion: what evidence do you have that "Microsoft woman employees" is an encylopedic topic? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge splitting employees of a company by gender is a really bad idea. Microsoft does not have separate roles for male and female employees. There are some places where we essentially split employees by gender, like the split of Roman Catholic nuns and Roman Catholic priests, but there nuns and priests have very different roles and positions. In fact, the equivalency of the two is very low. At Microsoft, especially among most of those who we will have articles on, gender is not a controlling factor in their jobs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2013 (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:rename/merge as nominated. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom. GiantSnowman 13:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Toronto Blizzard players. It may be useful to have separate main articles for periods when the team played in different leagues or franchises, but a single category should be sufficient for them all. The practice for alumni categories is to treat alumni of a predecessor or merging college as alumni of the successor. The principle should also apply to sports teams: one team - one category should be the rule. I have said this (I believe, successfully) on pervious discussions. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not gonna work that way. Like a few other previous teams including Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps, Tampa Bay Rowdies, Fort Lauderdale Strikers, etc., these are two separate franchises so we need separate cats to match each article. If they were on hiatus, then I would've considered moving all the categories to Toronto Blizzard players. But they ceased operations after the 84' season before getting back to business in 1986. So yeah, merging all of them to one single category despite the fact that they're two separate franchises doesn't make any sense. – Michael (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. - Xaris333 (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2013 (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 to both parents. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. It does not appear that we categorize comic book characters on their status as being villains in relation to one protagonist for another. I can find no other similar categories except for two that are category redirects to other categories for the franchise. Merger to both parents keeps them within the Spawn character structure and the supervillains character structure, which we do appear to allow. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2013 (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, without prejudice to creating a new category whose title better reflects the intended scope. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't typically categorize for cross-sections of occupation and religion when those two characteristics are unrelated. This is a member of Category:Lutherans by occupation, which is appropriate for occupations such as chaplains and theologians, but not so much for non-religious occupations such as linguists. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete along with its sibling categories, Jewish carpenters and Muslim farmers. Not a defining intersection.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not true that the two characteristics are unrelated: these people became linguists exactly because they needed to present the religious texts in their local languages and thus had to find the way to correctly translate them. --Eleassarmy talk 07:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a defining intersection. The assertion that their linguistic endeavours were directly tied to their translating religious texts is not supported by the majority of the articles. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what spurs people of quality X to engage in behavior or career Y doesn't make every "X's who Y" or "X-ish Y-s" category valid. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet we have such categories as Canadian beekeepers. What's the relation between these two characteristics? As to the claim about the assertion that their linguistic endeavours were directly tied to their translating religious texts, this is an intersection that is supported by several reliable sources, some of them available here (at Google Books). --Eleassarmy talk 09:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took a closer look at the 8 articles in the category based on your concern. Johann Phillip Fabricius and Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg fit your model of being linguists for explicitly religious reasons. In the other 6 articles, there is not such a connection or, at least, it's not made explicit in the article by my reading.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll try to provide a reliable source for the rest of them (tomorrow, I don't have time right now). --Eleassarmy talk 14:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a look at the Category:Bible translators tree as well to see if these articles belong there. That may capture part of what you're looking for. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For some of the rest of these people (with additional effort more about this may be found):
Adam Bohorič - you may read here: "Also arising from this biblicistic activity was the first attempt at compiling a grammar of Slovene, by Adam Bohorič".
Daniel Klein (grammarian) - "Klein writes in the foreword that his grammar is designed so that those desiring ecclesiastical service and wishing to instruct the benighted people in their native language may with its (the grammar's) help more easily and correctly acquire it."[2]
Samuel Kleinschmidt - [3] states for Hans Egede (also a Lutheran): "He took contact with the Inuit immediately in order to convert them to Christianity. For this purpose, he learnt the language, and wrote descriptions of it and translations of religious works into Greenlandic. He was the initiator of a tradition of Greenlandic studies, his sons Paul and Niels following him. This ultimately resulted in Samuel Kleinschmidt's Greenlandic grammar of 1851."
Lars Olsen Skrefsrud - became interested in Santali language and culture because he was sent as a missionary to India.
Delete as a WP:OC#TRIVIAL intersection of people of one religion who happened to pursue an occupation which is not inherently religious. If the aim was to create a category for Lutherans who translated the Bible, then they should be in a more specific category named something like "Lutheran bible translators" or "Lutheran translators of religious texts". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These people were more than translators. For example, you may read here: "Also arising from this biblicistic activity was the first attempt at compiling a grammar of Slovene, by Adam Bohorič". The intersection is therefore more than trivial: due to their Lutheran beliefs, these people translated Biblical and other religious texts, which led them to compile grammar books of the local languages they were translating into. See also Berlin Missionary Society: "The BMS focused on providing schooling and bringing the gospel to people in their own language. Hence the Society’s missionaries were often at the forefront of publishing Bible translations, dictionaries and grammars in indigenous languages." or here: "All Flacianist writings, which Sebastian Krelj strove to assert, were removed from the official repertoire of the Slovenian church under the elegantly contrived pretext that their orthography was inappropriate." The relation is direct. --Eleassarmy talk 09:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page describes the relationship very well: "Protestant missionaries believed in the power of the gospel in people's own language to save them for heaven, and by Ziegenbalg to improve life on earth. Following in the footsteps of Cyril and Methodius, Luther and Tyndale, this meant that the fundamental priority for missionaries was to produce a Bible in common languages so that people could understand it for themselves. The vernacularisation process required an insider's knowledge of the local language and customs of the people. If necessary, it required putting the language into written form and creating a grammar." --Eleassarmy talk 09:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that helpful explanation. However, a category of people who used language in that way needs a more specific title than "Lutheran linguists", because that title does not convey the crucial factor that these people used their lingustics in pursuit of Lutheranism. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The title can be negotiated, of course. What better alternative do you suggest? --Eleassarmy talk 11:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the group here is roughly described as "Lutherans who translated the bible into vernacular languages". If that description is OK with you, then we need a short form of it. The best I can think of so far is "Bible vernacularisers", but the neologism is so ugly that I couldn't recommend it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been clearly explained above that these people were not only (or were not at all) Bible translators, but translated other texts and wrote dictionaries and grammar books. This is typical linguistic work, and as such they qualify as linguists. They did all this exactly because they were of the Lutheran faith, so they are rightly regarded as Lutheran linguists. --Eleassarmy talk 15:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are absolutely Lutherans who became linguists because of their faith. But there must also be a significant number of linguists who just coincidentally are Lutherans just based on their percentage in the general population, right? Ernst Oswald Johannes Westphal would be one. I'm not convinced a category is needed here outside the Bible translators and Lutheran missionary ones but, if so, it should be a sub-cat of Category:Translators by work or Category:Bible translators along the lines suggested by BRG rather than just an intersection of career and religion. I hope that helps. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is ok. We can make this category part of Category:Translators by work, and we can be selective about whom we include in this category: those who are Lutherans just coincidentally should therefore be left out. --Eleassarmy talk 13:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Eleassar:, "we can be selective" is a bad basis for a category. The scope of a category should be evident from its title, because otherwise good faith editors will populate it with articles which do not meet any narrower definition. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realise this, but in the lack of a better title I think we'll have to make a compromise and regularly remove those who should not be included. It's probably not the first such category. --Eleassarmy talk 11:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Categories which require such regular maintenance are rarely maintained with enough vigour, or for long enough ... and even if they are maintained, the subjectivity of who to include leads to disputes. So it's much better to delete the category unless it is renamed to a title which accurately conveys its intended scope. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BHG here. Instead of having an intersection category (Lutherans and Linguists) and hope/infer the importance of that overlap, the category should be renamed for whatever it is you're trying to capture directly. Category:Translators of Lutheran texts or whatever.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, Category:Writers of Lutheran linguistic texts would be worth considering. As stated, they wrote dictionaries and grammar books, they were not only translators or were not at all translators. However, I find the title 'Lutheran linguists' much more fluent. --Eleassarmy talk 18:49, 1 December 2013 (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.
Eponymous categories for musicians/musical groups[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:no consensus on Category:NMB48; delete the rest. On the question of group-versus-individual nominations, there is a degree of discretion that applies and not everyone will agree. Personally, I do not recommend grouping eponymous categories into one nomination, since it is necessary to evaluate for each category whether there exists sufficient content to warrant an eponymous category. It is best to avoid a situation where participants might say "keep these ones, but delete the rest"—that is a sign that the same reasoning did not apply to all categories equally (at least in the eyes of certain participants). -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of these eponymous categories contain no more than subcategories for the artists' albums and songs, a discography page and a navbox template (some may have templates that haven't been categorized in their eponymous cat, but no matter). This is about the level I've seen that these types of categories have regularly been deleted via the CfD process; typically per WP:OC#Eponymous as nearly all content are works of the artists already in appropriate subcategories of Category:Albums by artist or Category:Songs by artist, and navigation isn't much more difficult from the eponymous article. The songs/albums categories can link to one another using a hatnote and even the discography page can be placed in one or both of those if so desired. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nominator and WP:OC#SMALL and WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. There needs to be more substance before creating these eponymous categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NMB48 (and Shiritsu Ebisu Chugaku is there is another article by the time the discussion ends). The NBM48 category is not empty anymore. A member of the girl group was accidentally placed into another category, now I've corrected the mistake. Shiritsu Ebisu Chugaku also has numerous members and its own television shows, so articles about them are likely to be created. There's also a template already. Why delete now only to create later? --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The items should be discussed separately. Also, I don't understand what bad comes from them and why not leave them be. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the same reasoning applies, they can all be bundled together. It's ok to say "keep this one or that one, but delete the rest". When articles on individual group members and appropriately categorized after a category is deleted, it's not difficult to recreate it if warranted. What bad comes from it, is that everyone thinks they should create an eponymous category for their favorite group, even when it's entirely needless and doesn't further aid in navigation that the article doesn't already provide. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I fully agree they can always be recreated and it's not that serious at all. I've changed my vote. NMB48 has a member, so I think the category shouldn't be deleted. If I create something for Ebichu (Shiritsu Ebisu Chugaku), it shouldn't be deleted too. (But I'm afraid creating artices for their TV shows like ja:エビ中の永遠に中学生（仮） or ja:私立恵比寿中学 放送部 would take too much time and there wouldn't be many people in the English Wikipedia wanting to read about that anyway. So maybe some other time...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2013 (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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:48, 2 December 2013 (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) 19:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tribe of Heaven only created one album, whose page redirects to the article of the group itself. There are no other article pages that fit in this category. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2013 (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:Delete. No longer needed as one of its two sub-cats has been deleted following CFD Sept 7. The remaining sub-cat Category:Deaths by stabbing is suitably categorised in the "deaths" tree, and does not need to be categorised under Category:Victims. – FayenaticLondon 14:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good category to differentiate between stabbing deaths and survivors. It is not an empty category. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crime victims is rarely defining for the person. Methinks that when petty crime is totted up, nearly everyone is a crime victim. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stand by my earlier !vote. There are stabbing incidents that become very notable incidents in famous peoples lives. For Monica Seles, it caused a two year hiatus in her career. For a recent example, Creigh Deeds was nearly killed by a knife attack, and could possibly end his career. On a side note, I believe part of the problem with the category was that it was unpopulated. Despite numerous famous stabbing victims, none included that category. I have done some research, and when there were referenced instances of notable stabbing events, I added the relevant category. I will go with consensus here, but I do believe it is a relevant and important category. Juneau Mike (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ Juneau Mike / Michaelh2001. The articles you put in the category are not about people who are notable because they were stabbed. The stabbing may be virtually trivia (example) or may have had a significant effect on the persons professional life (example), but if the stabbing event isn't the reason for the person's notability (or cause of death) then it's just one of many events that may have happened during their lifetime and the article shouldn't be in this category. DexDor (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Following the deletion of Category:Survivors of stabbing, this category can function either as a category for survivors of stabbing or as a parent to Category:Deaths by stabbing only. In the first instance, it is an inappropriate recreation, and in the second instance it is a useless single-member layer of categorization. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a logical outgrowth of reducing the category to only one sub-category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2013 (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:Delete. Liable to POV-pushing. We already have Category:Unsolved murders, which is fine, and the sole page currently in the nominated category is in a national sub-cat of that one, so there is no need for a merger. (Note: This was created as Category:Suspicious Deaths on 15 November, then speedily renamed.) – FayenaticLondon 14:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2: Other articles had been added (here) but have already been removed by other editors as the category was considered unnecessary or inappropriate. – FayenaticLondon 14:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question How can I tell who originally created this category? (It was moved by a bot based on capitalization right after creation.)RevelationDirect (talk)
delete While in principle I can imagine a category of people whose death was officially ruled "suspicious" but left unresolved, in practice none of the members thus far proposed fall in such a category. Seyasirt (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePossibly rename? Normally I vote to keep most things, but in this case it is too vague. Perhaps rename it? "Unexplained deaths" is one possibility. Juneau Mike (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suspicious to whom? one only wonders. and what about non-deaths like the Virgin Mary? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per our article on suspicious death, they are deaths which are "medically or legally unexplained" and where an inquest is required. Murders, solved or unsolved, do not fit the definition as the cause is already known. Dimadick (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is either too vague or too transitory. The press will frequently say that the police are treating a death as suspicious, until they make up their minds on which way their investigation should go. Others end off with an inquest that produces an open verdict. Others may be unsolved homicides (a wider term than murder). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2013 (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 from Franklin Township, Fayette County, Pennsylvania[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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 1 entry. ...William 13:54, 18 November 2013 (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 from Belle Vernon, Pennsylvania[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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with 4 entries. ...William 13:36, 18 November 2013 (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 from Fayette City, Pennsylvania[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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William 13:22, 18 November 2013 (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:WP:SMALLCAT. Only includes the company page and a racing driver who was sponsored by the company for a few years, and doesn't appear to have a reasonable potential for expansion. The BushrangerOne ping only 07:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm pretty sure that there were more content when this was created almost 6 years ago. I suspect that most of the content was relocated after Alltel was acquired. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that is so, this category should be merged, presumably the a Verizon category, as it appears that was the main beneficiary of the takeover and break up. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, based on the discussion, I'm going to opine Keep and repopulate. Not knowing what was in here makes this discussion inappropriate. Entities that were part of Alltel are and were part of Alltel. The fact that as a result of a merger they are now part of a new company does not change history. If someone wants to make a case that all parts of the historic Alltel are appropriately only included in Verizon, then they can make that case. But that is not the case in this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2013 (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:Option B. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only instance that tropical cyclones are subdivided by country and year. Whereas subdivision by either country or year is logical from the standpoint of navigation, intersecting the two characteristics leads to a proliferation of categories that are either small and lacking potential for growth or overlap significantly with the corresponding YYYY Region tropical cyclone season category. -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nomination - the Philippines are the only country in the world to face 20 tropical depressions per year on average, with at a guess 10 - 15 of those requiring articles. As a result i think it is quite logical to have these subcategories since we dont want Typhoons in the Philippines, Category:XXXX disasters in the Philippines to be over crowded or to be predominately taken up by typhoon artcles.Jason Rees (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming all notable storms since 1963 when PAGASA started naming them get articles in the end we are talking about >500 articles in one category which makes it harder to find the article you are looking for.Jason Rees (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support B - This is WP:OC, and sets a bad precedent; this is not the sort of categorisation scheme we should be encouraging. The 'B' proposal makes the most sense, I think. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that it is WP:OC or that it sets a bad precedent, since we are talking about the only country in the world to get 20 tropical depressions per year which would lead to a very crowded category in Typhoons in the Philippines.Jason Rees (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per option B. Subdividing by country and year is excessive, and option B groops them neatly under disasters. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support B variant as logic solution per above. NickSt (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support option B, with the exception when the category doesn't exist. There, it should be linked to XXXX in the Philippines. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2013 (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/2013 December 2. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)