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, some of the sources in those articles do mention it. Furthermore, thoughtcrime with holocaust gets 968,000 google returns, with apostasy you get 206,000 returns, with galileo you get 117,000 returns. So these topics obviously have some significant overlap in sources. Pwolit iets (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This category only contains the article of the same name, which refers to Orwell's novel. As such it has no scope for expansion. Galileo's offence was to publish ideas considered by the Church to be heretical, not to think. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 18 September 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 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:Fellows of the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina
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 Leopoldina's website. In fact, the word "fellow" doesn't have a direct parallel in the German language, so it's always "Mitglied" or "member", and the Leopoldina doesn't have other, regular members from which elected fellows would need to be distinguished. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I clicked on 5 articles and four mentioned the award in passing (1, 2, 3, 4) and the fifth not at all (5) so it doesn't seem defining. These articles are already categorized with why the person is in the Academy to begin with, usually a subcategory of Category:German scientists. Or maybe I just picked the wrong articles? RevelationDirect (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should have acknowledged your original proposal: I'm neutral on the rename proposal if the category is retained. I do not favor deleting all learned society categories but at least some of them are non-defining from my perspective. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree with User:RevelationDirect here. I checked a bunch more randomly selected articles from the category, and none of them mention that the person is or was a member of this. I think it is true that there are many other similar "non-defining" categories that categorize people for membership in a scientific academy, but I don't think that should stop us from dealing with this category. If the category is kept in the end, I support the proposal to rename. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this category is maintained poorly (I'm sure we actually have well over 1000 articles on Leopoldina members), but, as initially indicated by User:RevelationDirect, the majority of articles in this category at least do mention the membership. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being worth a mention but not being individually defining suggests a list would be the best solution to me (either as a separate list article or as a section of the main article). RevelationDirect (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are well over 1000 articles that could meet the category's criteria but there is less than 20 per cent of this number currently in the category also suggest to me that the characteristic is non-defining. There are some defining categories that will have a large number of articles, but when categories are slow to be categorized in a particular way, sometimes it's telling as to how defining it is. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the combined effect of 1. such categories generally being maintained poorly (with just a few exceptions) and 2. the Leopoldina not being in the focus of English-speaking authors. In the German WP, we've recently done a little project to fill the de:Kategorie:Mitglied der American Academy of Arts and Sciences, so it now contains nearly three times as many articles as the Category:Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The AAAS is one of the most important scientific academies in the English-speaking world, so considering even the majority of their fellows aren't categorized as such (and there certainly are more articles of AAAS fellows in the English than in the German WP), the current state of the Leopoldina category isn't surprising.
Look, if there's a consensus here that such categories aren't wanted anymore, that's okay for me. But this still is a proposal for renaming one particular category, and even one that relates to one of the oldest scientific communities in the world. I know "defining" and "generating notability" (which applies to membership in the Leopoldina) isn't the same, but if you really want to get rid of such categories, I'd suggest you may start at, say, the Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts instead.
Furthermore, I still see a big problem in discussing this by only referring to our own articles. That way, we may just confirm our own biases. For example, being a member of the Leopoldina may be considered more "defining" for lesser (but still notable) scientists who, however, are less likely to already have an article. So there is a selection effect. I also want to point to the possibility that such categories may come back in the future via Wikidata, which currently collects such memberships. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:10, 13 October 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 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 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.
