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 both. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Category:Masonic composers this is a misquote. Please stop quoting obsolete formulations of a guideline that has been changed since. Current wording: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes ... the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for" --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic." is the latest formulation. The sentiment remains the same. --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Latest? FYI: that formulation from WP:EGRS is older than the WP:COP#N updated formulation... and missing the point, since Freemasonry is not a "ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation" I don't see how switching to WP:EGRS is of any benefit to your argument. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the latest version has been around longer? Why would the considerations we use to determine whether or not to base a category on a subject's religion (i.e. relevance) be any less applicable to their membership of the Masons? --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree that the parent, Category:Masonic musicians, should be deleted too? It's the only other freemasons by occupation (aside from monarchs, which is a different matter) and I'd agree it's non-defining. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I'm adding it to the nomination. BencherliteTalk 22:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both RexxS has beaten me to it - I saw the composers category had been added to an article on my watchlist earlier today, I went to look for previous discussions about masons then got distracted! As has been said, they are not notable for being masonic composers, they are notable for being composers and happened also to be masons, which is not the basis for a category. Similarly for the musicians. BencherliteTalk 22:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Be a bit careful here, I suggest. Some composers (Mozart, Sibelius, Wagenseil) specifically composed music for Masonic rites. (See article on masonic music in Groves Dictionary). It could be argued that it would be appropriate (if proper citations were given about this in the relevant articles) that they could be categorised as 'Masonic composers'. Cf Category:Classical composers of church music. However, such a category should not include those who may have been masons but did not compose for Masonic rites (e.g. Liszt, Haydn, Sousa); nor should it include those who are alleged in List of Freemasons to have been masons, but for whom there is no evidence in this respect (beyond chit-chat or the web pages of some lodges), e.g. Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer. For the category 'Masonic musicians' I can however see no possible justification, as per User:Shawn in Montreal. My inclination for the present is to keep the 'composers' category for those who actually wrote music for the Masonic movement, and to delete the 'musicians' category. I will watch this space before committing myself.--Smerus (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Struck in view of my later decision to delete categories, see below.--Smerus (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to categorizing music as Masonic, if appropriate. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun a stub article Masonic music to fill an obvious gap.--Smerus (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being a Freemason is one of "the characteristics" Mozart "is best known for". Read any explanation on The Magic Flute (which is not Mason music) and you'll get a taste of how it was influenced by Freemasonry. And/or any explanation of the Clarinet Concerto (which is not Mason music, but composed for a fellow-Mason clarinetist), one of his best known instrumental compositions. The Maurerische Trauermusik, a Masonic composition, is not by far Mozart's best known work, so it are the better known, only indirectly Masonic, compositions that make "Masonic" defining for Mozart. As such WP:COP#N allows/mandates to categorize Mozart as Masonic composer – well one can't do that without the category existing, is it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By jove, yes, Francis does point to articles where classical music and Freemasonry have a very significant intersect. I am almost completely ignorant about classical music, as I'm sure some of you have managed to deduce. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of categorisation is to aid navigation between similar articles. There are good sources discussing the influence of Masonry on Mozart's work, but there the trail goes cold. A category with one or two entries and no prospect of growing is worthless, and becomes a magnet for adding inappropriate entries. --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can live with that. IMO Mozart shouldn't be both in the Freemasons and the Masonic composers cats. The second would be somewhat more appropriate I think, but have no idea whether it is a viable category (per WP:SMALLCAT etc), as I'm less aware which other composers might go in the cat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That category seems a little small, but is otherwise fine. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both non-notable combinations, even if we would categorize people on their masonic status (which seems quite like being in the glee club, a sorority, a booster club, or the like)... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both If there were more artists like Mozart who closely blended music and Freemasonry, I would be open to this category. But we really have a category tree that really only has 1 article that's defined by the intersection. No objection to keeping Masonic compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—On looking through the 21 composers currently in the category, Mozart is the only one who attempted a synthesis of freemasonry principles with music. And when one listens to those works up against his other works of the same compositional period, there's not much to distinguish them. The other 20 have no specifically masonic music that I can think of (I'm familiar with the œuvre of at least half of them), which leads us back to this being a non-notable intersection. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will say delete both, without prejudice to the possible later creation of a Category:Composers of masonic music which could include those like Mozart, Sibelius and Wagenseil who wrote music specifically for masonic ceremonies.--Smerus (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both, per Smerus. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At the risk of alienating my fellow editors at the composers project (who seem almost universally to be of a mind to delete these categories), I must say that I see some merit in them. Look at it not from the perspective of composers who were Freemasons, but rather Freemasons who were composers. The Freemasons define music as one of the seven "liberal arts and sciences"; it is a pursuit explicitly encouraged by their philosophy. Historically, the Freemasons have always encouraged freedom of musical expression, even in times when regimes attempted to bend musical creation to their political ends. Especially at the turn of the 19th century was this true; not only Mozart, but also Haydn, Beethoven, Albrechtsberger, Neefe, and many others, were Freemasons. There are books, articles and websites about the relation between music and Freemasonry. So I think the category has merit. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did Haydn, Beethoven, Albrechtsberger and Neefe compose Masonic music? Not that I know of. Yet their - and other composers' - membership in a Masonic order forms a significant pattern. Also, you must look at it from an historical perspective. Today, the Freemasons are a kind of social club, like the Lions Clubs International or Toastmasters International. But from the late 18th century to the middle of the 19th century it was much more than that: a mystical-religious-political order that advocated significant changes in the political order of the day, and had dramatic influence on the course of European politics and the arts. So the fact that Irving Berlin was a Freemason might be insignificant, but Johann Christian Bach's membership is not. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haydn subscribed to a lodge for just two years. There is no evidence that Beethoven was ever a mason. In what way, exactly, was the membership of some other composers a 'significant pattern'? Many members were doubtless grocers or cloth merchants - would those have been 'significant patterns'?--Smerus (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I know of no grocers who were notable enough to be in Wikipedia. I do know of three cloth merchants - Thomas Whitty, Robert Owen and William Morris. All three of them might well have been Freemasons (especially Morris, whose philosophical predilections are close to Freemasonry), though the articles about them say nothing. It would be interesting to know... --Ravpapa (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Later: Actually, I do know one grocer in Wikipedia: Joseph Leutgeb, horn player and friend of Mozart, whose main business was a cheese and sausage shop. It is very likely that Leutgeb was a Freemason. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete bothDie Zauberflote to the contrary, this continues to come across to me as a trivial intersection. When you get to someone like Samuel Wesley, what I see is, "well, he was a freemason too, on top of everything else." It comes across that, except for a very few, there's no connection at all between masonry and music. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I agree, and I will be creating that category when this discussion is resolved.--Smerus (talk) 21:46, 8 November 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. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Awards oughta have categories as well as templates. Would also note that OP attempted to depopulate this category before deleting it. pbp 21:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only is it non-defining, it's only available to a select few basketball players - all European-born, which makes it almost seem like a whites-only type award. Awards only available to people based on where they're born not what they've done are suspect. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most awards are available to only a select few individuals. Look at any award given by the NCAA or AAU, for example. pbp 01:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA requires its award recipients be born in the USA? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46: The NCAA requires its award recipients to play for a team in the NCAA. The AAU requires its award recipients to play for a team in the AAU. Those awards are only available to people based on who they play for, which is equally selective or "suspect" than from where you're from. While the Euroscar limits its award to those born in Europe, it does not limit what teams you have to play for: you can play in the NBA, the Euroleague, the NCAA... My point is your "whites-only" claim is an absurd red herring and should not be considered as a rationale for deletion. pbp 02:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: many awards are only available to the those who play for the sponsoring organization; this one is available to those who don't but only based on accident of birth. Accidents of birth include such immutable traits as race, etc., which demeans and delegitimizes the award. By they way, have you found any other category for an award limited to people by location of birth regardless of where they achieved whatever made them deserving? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46: You do realize that one of the award winners is Tony Parker, who is of mixed African and European heritage, right? pbp 19:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: straw-man. The US has a president with mixed African and European heritage, so there's no discrimination here anymore. </sarcasm> By the way, where's the non-European born folks? The NCAA has awards won by non-US born folks. Andreas Nödl is but one example. Since the NCAA bestows its awards on European-born individuals, an organization that does not reciprocate has cheapened its selection criteria to irrelevant trivialities. . Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46: Oh, so we should only have categories for awards open to all 7 billion people in the world?</sarcasm> I'm sorry, but all I'm seeing out of you is IDONTLIKEIT...you don't like that it's restricted only to the European-born and you refuse to acknowledge that almost any other award out there restricts who can get it in one way or another. There's no reason that we should keep awards restricted by league while deleting ones restricted by heritage. Your heritage is a defining characteristic; playing in a particular league, eh, not so much. Also, Tony Parker is hardly a "straw-man" in this as he is a very real person who is in this category. pbp 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Where are the wiki-guidelines that talk about which notable awards are permitted to have wiki-categories of recipients and which ones cannot? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
@Ottawahitech:WP:OCAWARD which basically just refers to the more generic WP:DEFINING which basically asks whether this person "defined" by this award. Traditionally we've kept top level awards (Academy Awards) but gotten rid of low level ones (Kids Choice Awards) although that consensus is fraying. My personal rule of thumb is "is this person more famous because of the award or does it just reflect their pre-existing fame" but other editors use different standards and so can you. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: how does that translate into sports awards? pbp 02:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I would limit to league winners, world/international competition champs, MVPs, rookies of the year and Olympic medalists not because I personally find those awards meaningful but because I hear those awards commonly mentioned in the first breath about athletes (and not just by fans who focus on obscure stats) and that would be reflected in introduction/description in Wikipedia articles and not just in a section that lists all their awards. In this case, I can't really speak to whether a continental" award is defining since there is no equivalent North American award for me to gain insights. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see why being the best European-born basketball player playing anywhere in the world isn't defining. Goodness knows, we have a wealth of categories for national-level sports award winners, or league-level best-player awards. This is a supra-national, continent-wide award, and is not restricted to the NBA or any league in particular. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and Carlossuarez46's statement that it "makes it almost seem like a whites-only type award" is ridiculous. Europe is not a whites-only continent and indeed if he'd look at the bio articles in this category, they are not all white. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 7 November 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.
Oppose The Parent category does not offer categorization by historic period and the Ostrogothic Papacy was a distinct period of history. Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a too narrow period for categorization, taking in mind the limited amount of content (apart from the popes we have the eponymous article plus one additional history article). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It is appropriate to split the Papacy by period. It is an enormous subject, since most popes have only presided over the church for a few years. We should rather be implementing a split properly, assuming that we can agree on periods. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Peterkingiron. The topic deserves a "by period" treatment. I'm not sure that the usual periods would be appropriate here (early ancient / late ancient / medieval / early modern / late modern). I think that epoch-defining events peculiar to the papacy (e.g. the Great Schism) would be more appropriate. So I'd like to engage in a fuller discussion of this possible treatment away from CFD. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to see your proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 9 November 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. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, target consists only of the nominated category, and besides the nominated category has an unusual format (there aren't any other "church history" categories). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 4 November 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: Same as Category:Action thriller video games, not a video game genre. Video game genres are based upon gameplay elements, not its narrative. Combining the two is unnecessary and endless: science fiction first-person shooter, science fiction strategy, science fiction adventure and every other type of narrative and video game genre combination can have its own category by that logic. Soetermans. T / C 14:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. There is already a correctly populated category called Category:Science fiction video games, which presents a thematic genre for video games. "Action" as a genre of video games is an extremely broad paint brush, to the point of meaninglessness. We use subgenres such as "First person shooter" or "Action-adventure" instead. Each of these already have valid categories in place, and the intersection is unnecessary. -- ferret (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments on Wikiproject page. ~Mable (chat) 15:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Ferret. Redundant category. Sergecross73msg me 15:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ferret. —zziccardi (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the above. Totally redundant. -- Chamith(talk) 15:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Bertaut (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -- Hounder4 19:07, 5 November 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: "Action thriller" is not a video game genre, WP:OR by @Lembrazza:. @Rhain1999:, @Ferret:, @The1337gamer: and @ChamithN: have been undoing creator's adding of the unsourced category repeatedly for the last couple of days. Going to the source of the problem: an unnecessary category. Soetermans. T / C 14:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. "Thriller" is not a genre used in relation to video game media, so this category is simply incorrect. -- ferret (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments on Wikiproject page. ~Mable (chat) 15:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Not a commonly used genre name in the video game industry. Sergecross73msg me 15:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also per the above. —zziccardi (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -- Hounder4 19:08, 5 November 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:Albuquerque, New Mexico mayoral elections[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 all. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then all need to be renamed. You don't need a mix of formats to align to a parent category, do you? There are no alternative parent category that might interfere. However, oppose noted. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
C2C requires that there is a clear convention in the category tree for proposed format, which in this case is the current one. And while I agree the proposed format is better, it needs IMO a full discussion. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 21:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general, they seem to be prefixed by state name, but as they are on state level, no awkward comma disambiguation will occur. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- better grammar, but are all these elections really notable? Local officials except in the greatest cities are usually NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every last one of these is a significant city more than large enough to grant notability to its mayors — the standard for mayors is not nearly as restrictive as the standard for ward councillors is. Most of these indeed aren't cities where we'd grant an automatic presumption of notability to the councillors (although a few are), but all of them are in the "yes to the mayor" class. So yes, these are all reasonable and acceptable topics. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom as a better naming format than the existing one (although Homunculus was entirely correct to note that this wasn't eligible for speedy renaming, since the situation didn't involve a straightforward lack of compliance with an established naming convention. It's a good nomination, it was just initially listed in the wrong place for the circumstances involved.) Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a better naming format that avoids an awkward compound modifier. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 07:54, 11 November 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:African-Americans' civil rights activists[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. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think I've ever seen this before in a category name: African-Americans' -- apostrophized, possessive? These are their activists? Is that the logic here? Plus, we only hyphenate "African-American" if it's an adjective so African-Americans' as a collective noun that possesses the activists is grammatically wrong, like 'Jewish's activists.' This was renamed back in 2013 by @BrownHairedGirl: but from what I can see she closed it wrong. The intention was to be inclusive of non-black activists but they went about it wrong, I think, after a very limited discussion. Rename per Category:Activists for Hispanic and Latino American civil rights, which was itself renamed and closed correctly imo three years prior by @Good Olfactory:.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:14, 4 November 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:American Geophysical Union publications[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 as nominated. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This category has 1 article with no room for growth. Back in 2011, when it was created, it made perfect sense but, since then, all but one of the articles have been downmerged into Category:American Geophysical Union academic journals and I just created the parent cat and this is squeezed in between. (The AGU publishes 19 academic journals and 1 other publication.) The one non-academic publication, Eos Magazine, is already well-categorized in the magazine categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Against: serves to avoid magazines being incorrectly categorized under AGU's journals. fgnievinski (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could see that happening with the 1 article. We just disagree over whether the extra layer of categorization is worth it to avoid that risk. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AGU publishes a lot of books, but none of them seem to be notable. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged that sub-category with a notice since you seem to be leaning toward upmerging the academic journals instead. I think the AGU is known mostly for its journals so that might be more defining (and definitely more populated). Either way, if we were starting fresh with the articles we have today, I don't think we would have two publication cats. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:00, 4 November 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.
Comment – glass ceilings are all very well, but what is the deletion rationale? Oculi (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While a person's gender is irrelevant to their status as investor, I think there is value in this category. Women investors as a category is notable, as that subject gets written about frequently. I could be convinced otherwise, but I don't see a reason or justification to delete. Alligator bear (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no relevancy of the combination as even the keep !vote acknowledges. The justification is we don't categorize on irrelevant combinations, especially gender (the G in WP:OCEGRS). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A brief google search clearly shows this is a valid category for multiple reasons and that clearly a glass ceiling/or at least barrier exists. First, if we are discussing women investing in themselves and their own wealth, i.e. money managers, women earn less than men, thus are generally more concerned with security than return, which ironically has led to them outperforming because they stay the term. [1], [2], [3] Second, if we are discussing investing in other women, i.e. venture capital, there is most definitely a glass ceiling and it hovers somewhere between 5 and 10%. [4], [5][6]SusunW (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SusunW, also the category will prove quite useful doing what categories do. Atsme📞📧 14:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and seems to get significant coverage outside Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic notable and as relevant as writers, photographers, etc. In fact, snow keep. Women face issues of glass ceiling and challenges to entry to the profession, most certainly relevant. Montanabw(talk) 01:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the fact that real-world sources persistently identify women investors based on the combination of their sex and profession. Alansohn (talk) 04:45, 10 November 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:rename. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:52, 4 November 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:rename. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 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.
