Category:Indie pop groups from Philadelphia, 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:upmerge.delldot∇. 02:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge too small a category to justify such a distinction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2015 (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. MER-C 12:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF. Meanwhile there seems to be some consensus that WP:OCAWARD does not apply to the one most important order of a country, but that exception does not apply to these nominated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are clearly defined, so we don't have problems with inclusion criteria. Even the less important ones are limited and may be a defining feature for less prominent personalities. Receiving a well-known and significant award may even constitute notability per WP:ANYBIO, and all of these national awards are clearly well-known and significant, at least within their country and historical context. --PanchoS (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nom doesn't say that these aren't clearly defined. Even if having an award is part of a person's claim to notability we can still categorize them as royalty etc without the need for categorizing by awards received as well. Recording lists of award winners is much better done as lists than as categories and having both is unnecessary duplication. DexDor(talk) 07:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides lots of other award categories, if I calculated correctly he is in 6 of the ones nominated above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not at all a defining characteristic. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these appear to the be top-level national awards. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These awards are not defining to the individuals who received them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2015 (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:Political party alliances in Scotland[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the other parent hierarchy is already covered more specifically on the single member article. – FayenaticLondon 13:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- We are unlikely to get enough content for this to be worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one entry categories are very rarely justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2015 (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:No consensus. There's no consensus to delete this category, that is clear. Note that CFD is not cleanup so whether to purge or not to purge is not a question for CFD but for either the category talk page or each individual article's talk page. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Procedural nomination. What happened here is that Adela Hernandez was removed from this category in 2013 by User:DexDor, citing WP:COP#N because having previously worked a janitor has no relationship to why she has an encyclopedia article at all — and then that removal was reverted by User:Ottawahitech today, with the edit summary "checking to see if consensus has changed". But consensus is established by a group of Wikipedians discussing the issue, not by three editors getting into a revert war between themselves — so I'm bringing it here for discussion so that an actual consensus can actually be established. There are three possible outcomes here:
Delete, because with only a couple of exceptions nearly everybody in this category is somebody who merely happened to have worked as a janitor at some point before whatever subsequent job promotion actually got them an encyclopedia article under some other Wikipedia inclusion criterion, and the few people who could actually survive a COPN purge would leave it as a WP:SMALLCAT;
Keep, retaining everybody who ever worked as a janitor at all regardless of whether that's close enough to the crux of their notability to be considered a genuinely WP:DEFINING characteristic;
Purge of anybody who isn't defined by the janitor job in any substantive way, but keep it regardless of the size of what's left over on the grounds that it is sufficiently defining of a few people.
No opinion from me, since this is a consensus test brought on by two other editors in disagreement. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining, I checked all articles and only one person happened to be a janitor while becoming notable, but not notable as a janitor. All other persons became notable for something else after having been a janitor earlier. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it became widely known that they have been working as a janitor when becoming notable, this may be perfectly enough to be one of the defining characteristics of the public picture of a personality. --PanchoS (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep/PurgeJames Hampton (artist), William Quesse, William Rodriguez and James M. Spangler all have notability tied to being janitors. In any case, the standard for categories is not notability, it's whether or not it is defining and a life-long janitor like Ronnie Woo Woo is defined as being a janitor and should be categorized as such even if that's not why he has an article. (There is a valid issue here about whether we should over-categorize people for jobs they held briefly in their youth, like Margaret Thatcher as a chemist, but that is not a problem limited to this blue collar profession.) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Purge/keep This is a defining characteristic of some biographies. It should not be used when it does not define the person's life. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without purging. The named people and many others are at least as much defined by their (former) occupation as a janitor, as Angela Merkel and Margaret Thatcher are defined by their being chemists by original profession. The fact that the category currently is so empty shows how much we're affected by classism. So while categories should always be purged from entries that don't belong there. I don't see why this would be particularly the case for janitors. --PanchoS (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The occupations a person had before (or after) doing what made them notable is material that should be included in the text of their article (along with things like marriages and children), but isn't a good way to categorize (see essay WP:DNWAUC). There may be some other articles that are miscategorized and there may be some borderline cases, but that's not a good reason to just ignore a rule. Note: the correct place for a discussion about this would be the talk page of WP:COP#N. DexDor(talk) 06:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Purge per WP:COP#N and keep if it contains anything (even if it's just the fictional subcat). If empty then delete (and salt) with no prejudice to it being recreated if a person is notable for being a janitor. @Ottawahitech - if you disagree with a rule, e.g. WP:COP#N (which hasn't significantly changed in years), then propose a change to that rule on it's talk page; don't just start breaking the rule. Without COP#N some people would be in many occupation categories (e.g. "He worked at a number of jobs, including lifeguard, paper carrier, grocery clerk, forest firefighter, and golf caddy." - see essay WP:DNWAUC) and, for example, Category:Golfers would contain many lawyers etc who list golf as one of their hobbies (thus making categorization less useful). DexDor(talk) 06:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds a bit unfair as nobody suggested to change or weaken WP:COP#N. Clearly, biographies should only be categorized by defining features. However, we're not in a better situation to decide what is defining than the authors of the actual article, so there is no use in purging the category in a mass-effort. Also, we disagreed with making a difference between janitors and, say, chemists. If defining: categorize. If not defining, don't. --PanchoS (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Ottawahitech doesn't want to change/weaken COP#N then why is xe disregading it (and not inadvertently - xe reverted an edit that was made per COP#N)? Editors who specialise in categorization (and are hence more familiar with the category structure and the relevant guidelines) are often able to improve the categories the original author put the article into - e.g. adding categories, using more specific categories, removing redundant categories (per SUBCAT) for consistency across a range of articles. In my experience (apart from articles written by SPAs about people of very dubious notability that are spammed into many categories) this type of overcategorization (not following COP#N) is more often caused by someone other than the original author - Adela Hernández is a good example of this. DexDor(talk) 05:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough people are defined by this. However if we keep it we should keep for all. We do not limit lawyer categories to people somehow "defined" by being a lawyer. If we have reliable sources stating the person was paid as a janitor, than we should keep the category for them.05:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Fully agree with the rest you said, but how do you come to the conclusion that not enough people were defined by this? --PanchoS (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a counter to my argument above would be that doctors, lawyers, chemists and others have to have some level of training to become such (varrying by time and place) while in general you need little training to be a janitor, not to ignore the fact that there are janitors who have been trained in the deep issues of proper cleaning and what chemicals to use in what situations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no one's notability depends on their having been a janitor. Given the state of Western economies, nearly every famous person has probably cooked or waited tables in obscurity in their pasts, none are notable for having done so. If you weren't notable as a janitor, while you're a janitor, you aren't notable for having been a janitor after you achieve notability elsehow. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most people's notability doesn't depend on their exact birth year, their alma mater, maybe even their nationality. In a number of cases, it may however depend on their occupation as a janitor. For these cases, this category exists. This line of argumentation clearly goes too far in narrowing the meaning of a defining feature to a single aspect constituting someone's notability. --PanchoS (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2016 (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. MER-C 12:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with three other sub-cats within Category:Mandarin Chinese. This is a follow-up to Oct 13 where naming other categories to the longer form "Mandarin Chinese-language..." was not agreed. – FayenaticLondon 13:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per previous discussion.--Zoupan 16:15, 29 December 2015 (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:Central and Eastern European rebellions[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 and delete per proposal of Fayenatic london. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zoupan -- I had to think a little about the subcategories, but the content is largely divided by country; and there are not enough countries in Europe for a split to be needed, even if we could agree sub-continental boundaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that separate rebellions-categories be maintained for these. Instead, if a rebellion is regarded important to such an extent, it could be added to those categories, yes.--Zoupan 16:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not necessary to do the latter, because the rebellions would be within the national sub-categories in each case. – FayenaticLondon 08:59, 30 December 2015 (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:Rebellions in the Slovene ethnic territory[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:delete. – FayenaticLondon 09:00, 30 December 2015 (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.
American college sports championship team navigational boxes[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:rename. MER-C 12:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bring consistency to category tree, matching other categories for other sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note Only the first category was tagged. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 04:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Armbrust, thanks for pointing that out. I have now tagged all of the categories. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming - Consistent with best practice and good grammar, if not common usage among grammatically challenged sports writers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2015 (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. There's not enough support for the rename to me but that can be proposed next or a new listing in combination with all the subcategories as suggested here.Ricky81682 (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: sounds right, but I would be more persuaded by a nomination that made proposals to split or rename all the similar sub-cats too. – FayenaticLondon 18:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if there is no intention to split/rename the subcats. If the OP is confident (e.g. based on whether having separate articles is contentious) that there is unlikely to be objections to a complete split then they can go ahead and create the subcats without CFD discussion. Note: I would prefer to avoid the word "present" (i.e. use Category:War in Afghanistan (2015–)). DexDor(talk) 07:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while they may be technically different wars, they are considered by most to be one and the same. MB298 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's just as fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2016 (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.
