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.
Delete - I don't see any reason to keep the category for just the film. The town article is at best tangential and it would be misleading to categorise it within Snowtown murders. Shadowmaster13 (talk) 10:36, 20 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.
Delete We can have categories about a film's or universes characters, but certainly not about its actors. How extensive would a category about long-running franchises like James Bond be? Dimadick (talk) 13:31, 14 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.
Keep As being defining (the claim that they have one), as backed up by the main article. Most of the articles in the category that I checked mention this in the lead of said article (IE this person is primarily known for having a eidetic memory, or their powers to recall things from memory). If there are articles in the category that you don't think belong there, they need pruning out. Abubakar Shekau is a classic case of someone adding a category that's not supported in the article text. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead10:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Controversial subject, questionable historicity, and categories typically do not include sources on who is to be included. Lists are more appropriate here. Dimadick (talk) 13:34, 14 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.
Delete The one bio-article is already well categorised. The other item is a very incomplete list of mayors, with four names, the other three being redlinked. The list article should probably be deleted or merged to that on the town. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 17 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category.
Wikipedia doesn't have even a single article about Carthusian literature by this Catholic order. There is technically one article in the category right now but it doesn't belong there: The Cloud of Unknowing is an anonymous work that may have been written by a prominent Augustinian or "it is possible he was a Carthusian priest, though this is not certain." Even if we get some archaeological confirmation of authorship, that still leaves us with 1 article which runs afoul of WP:SMALLCAT. (No objection to recreating later if we can get up to around 5 articles.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this category as part of an ongoing project to categorise writings originating from within a monastic milieu. Each order can have radically different approaches to mysticism, devotions, canon law, and general practise. Thus, each of these categories was to have a category-specific parent article (i.e., in this case, "Carthusian literature") connected to a larger parent article, "Monastic literature", with the sections therein linked to those category-specific parent articles.
Unfortunately, life got in the way, as it often does, and the project was left unfinished. I was forced to take an extended wiki-break, and my activity on Wikipedia was almost nil. Hence the relatively empty category. Honestly, I'm ambivalent as to whether the category is deleted... However, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to fill in the category (in relatively short order); there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia concerning literary works by Carthusians, both specifically relating internally to the order, and otherwise. Though admittedly, there are considerably less articles than, say, for the Franciscan article. But doing this would render the reason for deletion moot, obviously. For that matter, it wouldn't be difficult to complete the project, without any possibility of WP:SYNTH; there are a wealth of reliable sources discussing this subject.
I was honestly surprised, when searching for works by authors within specific orders, that there were no such categories. Or parent article discussing the literary activity within these orders, given their rather prolific literary activity and traditions. In my opinion, it's something that could radically ease navigation. Though I suppose this is one of those topic areas that is something of a niche interest, and doesn't necessarily attract a great deal of traffic.
You're free to delete the category, if that's the consensus, of course. And as you say, it can indeed be re-created later. I guess my comment, aside from explaining why it was created is to pose the question: wouldn't it simply be easier to improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinto Simmaco (talk • contribs) 01:56, 14 January 2016
Delete While I do agree that the literary output of monks and nuns is an encyclopedic matter of historical interest, subcategories by monastic order seem rather trivial. The order does not define the nature of the work. Unlikely to be well-populated either way. Dimadick (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The only reference to the Carthusians in the article is that a member of the order made a translation. The article is already in monastic literature, so that I do not think any wider upmerging is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 17 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.
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be a category for topics whose name (or one of several names) contains "philia". That's not how we normally categorize wp articles. DexDor(talk)05:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete philia is the Greek for love (in the sense of friendship). I do not see any point in a category for desciplines ending "-philia" any more than we would have a category for subjects ening in -ology. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 17 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.
Category:American animation with black protagonist
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: See, I had thought "person of color" was a deprecated term. There was something in the news recently about an actor referring to other actors as "coloured" and catching a lot of shit for it. If the intended meaning of the category is in fact "not white" maybe the category title should say that, somehow (just don't ask me on that). But only if we really want to have a parent-category-of-exclusion. Surely there's some way to avoid that? ―cobaltcigs09:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Colored" and "person of color" are not the same term. Both date to the late 1700s. The former became the preferred term after the 1860s, and began to fall out of use in the 1960s. The latter was revived in the 1970s and is increasingly favored by current anti-racist activists as the preferred term. It is semantically equivalent to "non-white", except that it defines a group by something they are, rather than something they are not, which is part of the appeal to those who use it. Ibadibam (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Most of these works, particularly those with black protagonists, address the experiences of racial and ethnic groups as a central theme. In addition, the tendency for American media producers to use white protagonists by "default" means that to do otherwise is often a deliberate, thoughtful choice, intended as a core characteristic of the work. That's enough to make these categories defining. I think there's no question that these need to be renamed to at least include an indefinite article after "with". It may also be appropriate to reconsider the scope of the categories to something a bit broader, perhaps Category:African Americans in American animation (cf. Category:African-Americans in comic strips). Ibadibam (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I disagree with Carlossuarez46 that the ethnic origin of a fictional character is not defining, it nearly always is, I am a bit surprised at how tiny this entire category tree is. 6 subcategories of American animation with person of color as protagonist for a total of 25 articles. There might be enough material for one category, but not the subcategories. And parent category Category:Person of color only has 4 articles. Is the topic of "person of color" notable? Dimadick (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow, we really have a politically incorrect name for a category here? Also, I agree with Peterkingiron, "African Americans in American animation" seems acceptable, plus it is grammatically correct too. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:36, 19 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.
Thanks for reminding me to cover that. The sole member of the category, as I found it today, was Dixieland. That is to say, the article Dixieland was a member of Category:New Orleans Jazz, which in turn is a member of Category:Dixieland. The category under discussion was originally about the basketball team, but this was cut-and-paste moved to Category:New Orleans Jazz (NBA team) (see diff). Ibadibam (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator - Given that the article that shares this category's title is a disambiguation page, it seems fitting that this should be a category disambiguation, per Fayenatic london above. I am amending my nomination. Ibadibam (talk) 03:33, 2 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.
