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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty category based on old misspelling now corrected Doprendek (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep as a category redirect or speedy delete per db-c1. Thanks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G7. There's not much use for keeping the redirect. kennethaw88 • talk 04:52, 27 January 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:Professional wrestlers from Calgary[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:Delete. Per numerous past CFD discussions, consensus has been established that we do not create geographic sportspeople crosscats for individual sport intersected with individual city that the sportspeople happen to be from. It was proposed in a prior discussion that we treat wrestlers from Calgary as a special exception due to the prominence of the Stampede Wrestling promotion, but the problem is that not everybody associated with Stampede Wrestling was from Calgary and not every professional wrestler from Calgary was necessarily associated with Stampede Wrestling — so while a category for Category:Stampede Wrestling alumni would absolutely be appropriate, this category is actually tangential to the properly defining characteristic. Accordingly, here's my proposal:
Recategorize the entries from this category which do belong in the new one, while removing the entries from this category which don't;
Delete this category. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the person who raised this particular point, I agree with the proposed outcome. Most of the people in the category will belong at the proposed title. However, I think this should also be an upmerge to Category:Sportspeople from Calgary, rather than a straight up deletion. Those trained at Stampede Wrestling in Calgary represent a uniquely important relevance to professional wrestling, given its prominence in establishing many of the sport's leading performers in the 1980s and 1990s. The training venue (Hart House (Alberta)) has been designated as a municipal heritage site, such is the impact of this group. SFB 12:10, 25 January 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. Note I did edit this category doing cleanup for various nominations. I do not believe that this disqualifies me from closing this. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page (Saraiki cuisine) was included in the category, even though it better fits Category:Pakistani cuisine. The very existence of "Saraiki cuisine" is debatable at best - there are regional dishes in South Punjab, sure (like, mango dishes), but they are related to the region's botany and not to any ethnicity. The category is thus unlikely to ever contain anything else than the page with the same name. kashmiriTALK 16:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No obvious contents here and some obvious worries in that searching non-wiki-based pages doesn't turn up anything obvious for source material of the main topic. SFB 17:30, 23 January 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:International sports competitions hosted by the Greenland[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.
speedy delete as empty category. I also don't foresee this getting populated in the future either. SFB 17:32, 23 January 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:Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to distinguish on country level between learned societies in general and scientific societies in particular. Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking at Category:Scientific societies, it looks like only the US, UK and India would have enough articles for this tree to work, leaving dozens of potential 1 and 2 article categories. 13:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Merge -- No point in splitting science from other academic disciplines, quite apart from the problem of discerning the boundary as to which subjects are (or are not) scientific ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 25 January 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:Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cat contains more than just societies in the field of science, but also in history, philosophy, etc. Given its size, I don't see a need to create "Learned societies of Poland" separately with this as a subcat. Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really for truth in advertising to reflect what is actually in the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- for reasons as parent (above). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 25 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: Renaming would reduce ambiguity and better accommodate future entries. First, there are no salamanders or caecilians in New Zealand, so all amphibians, native or introduced, are frogs (order Anura, which includes toads). Thus Category:Frogs of New Zealand is functionally identical to Category:Amphibians of New Zealand, and is ambiguous regarding introduction status. I believe sorting New Zealand's amphibians (all of which are frogs) by native/introduced status is more useful, and thus by renaming Category:Frogs of New Zealand to Category:Native amphibians of New Zealand, an unambiguous parallel to Category:Introduced amphibians of New Zealand is created. Another options would be to replace all instances of "Amphibian" with "Frog", but it's best to stay general, e.g. should a non-frog amphibian ever be introduced, it could easily be placed in the existing category. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:47, 23 January 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:Politicians convicted of corruption[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: The only article cited in this category, relates to a politician who, according to the article, may have been charged for murder. There is no evidence cited in the article that the individual has been convicted of corruption. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Since being nominated, another editor has emptied the category and I have recategorized it. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Populate This seems like a worthwhile subcategory of Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. I think most readers would care if the crime was related to office or was just coincidentally committed by someone with elected office. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unlike some of these Foos convicted of XXX, not only is there a notable intersection (and a well-developed if not top-notch quality article: Political corruption), but that those convicted were politicians both at the time of offense and the time of conviction. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keepand question: is there a good reason to keep the two child categories apart? It doesn't look like they are clearly distinctive. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate Political office is open to corruption by design and it is the most common criminal charge against politicians. This is clearly of worth to anyone who thinks we should be categorising people by relevant concepts with a history spanning millenia. SFB 12:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate -- My Indian friend tells me that the papers there are full of stories about corrupt politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the ones closer to home don't tend to get prosecuted for their corruption, eh? :) SFB 22:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done a fair attempt of populating this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 26 January 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:Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Is this a worthwhile category at this stage? There is currently one article in it, and there is no overall category scheme for nondenominational Muslims at this stage. As a comparison, non-denominational Christians are not categorized as such, they are simply placed in the appropriate "FOOian Christians" category. (If kept, it could be renamed to Category:American non-denominational Muslims to match non-denominational Muslim.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom If this is kept, category Category:American Muslims should be a container category, because all its members will belong to one of the sucats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a form of "and the rest" type of categorisation. Unless any of the subject identifies as non-denominational, then this should be upmerged and articles can be kept in the main category. SFB 12:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I suspect that most will in fact belong to one or another sect, at least by parentage. It is wholly appropriate for any that do not to go directly into the parent category, even if it is tagged as a container category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 25 January 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.
