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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (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:Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete, same reasons as why I chose to nominate Category:Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert for deletion further down in today's CfD log. Appears to be overcategorization, and similar categories are being deleted of late. Wizardman 22:56, 15 May 2008 (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:Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert[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:Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify since there are 40, which makes picking them up from articles rather complicated. The category already has some list/article material. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list would be fine. Cgingold (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per Johnbod. The family history of the descendents of this couple are probably among the most notable during the era. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2008 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A subjective title. Dudesleeper / Talk 09:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the nominator read the list, they would see that there are strict criteria to the category. It involved external media calling the song a "signature song". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even the accompanying article is pushing NPOV. Links to a music journalist claiming a song is a signature song is still subjective. Excerpts from the article: The term is generally not applied to the successful song of a so-called "one-hit wonder" — an artist who is closely identified with one song because they have had no other successful songs. Says who? And A well-known example is "Over the Rainbow" (which is considered by many to be the most popular song of the twentieth century). The old "considered by many" line rears its head again. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherent subjectivity makes this extremely troublesome as a list (List of signature songs was deleted), but utterly impossible as a category. Quale (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unacceptably subjective inclusion criterion (although I have a source for OTR which I'll add to the article). Otto4711 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The matter is subjective on its face per above. Any list should have supporting sources on that page. --zenohockey (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2008 (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, without prejudice to renomination to consider deletion (or, more precisely, upmerging to the parent category for the religion – in this case, Category:Lutherans) of this and similar categories. –Black Falcon(Talk) 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I think it's safe to say that a convention has generally developed to use "occupation" rather than more narrow "profession" in category names. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Lutherans. If the cat is meant to include non-religous professions it should be deleted as a not-notable intersection. If it's meant to include only religous-professions it should be deleted because it has limited potention for growth and can sensibly be included in Category:Lutherans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewcrewer (talk • contribs)
Okay, should have noticed the common scheme. But should be limited to occupations connected to religion. Rename per nom. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 15:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably not needed for the 3 items in the cat, and seems to invite creation of Lutheran engineers, Lutheran teamsters, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all of these are for specifically religious occupations. All of the writers for instance, wrote devotional material and tracts (with one exception, Bo Giertz, whose fiction was still heavily informed by his faith). This will undoubtedly lead to the creation of occupation categories that have no relation to the faith of those people categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - there are 3 appropriate subcats, each with many subcats. It is just a container category - without it, its subcategories are all still there but disconnected from the category structure. (There are no engineers so far in Category:Protestants by occupation, unless they are hiding amongst the clerics.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent. (category creator) "Profession" was used as that was the convention at the time; if it has developed to "occupation" then that's fine by me. And, although I personally find the category useful, if the trend is away from this particular way of organizing individuals, then that's fine too. Pastordavid (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2008 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Capitalization fix plus change to standard naming per the standards of WikiProject Radio Stations. Dravecky (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2008 (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) 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, the few templates in this recently created category serve the same purpose / are of the same type as those in the nominated merge target category; ie they're all templates used to cite particular sources. Redundant. cjllwʘTALK 04:56, 15 May 2008 (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. VegaDark (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is extremely underpopulated, it's very probable that it never reaches four or entries, and doesn't help navigation, since being a scottish living in cuba does not make two articles be related. Same user has also created similar stuff like a redirect from "Ukrainian Texan" to "Ukrainian American" and many other redirects which are probably going to get deleted, see the complaints about this user at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_14, has created many other similar redirects that will probably all get deleted, and has deleted warnings from his talk page Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone really needs to stop this user Hashmi, Usman from creating virtually useless cats and articles - most have been deleted. ww2censor (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The one person currently in the category doesn't even belong there. Although she is of Scottish descent, she has American, not Cuban, nationality and was not born in Cuba. She is really an American of mixed Scottish and Cuban descent. A category called "Scottish Cubans" should only include people of Scottish descent who hold Cuban nationality. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overcategorization on ethnicity. --Soman (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a lousy drink anyway. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - category is now empty. B.Wind (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty now, but can only imagine the uselessness of the concept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2008 (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.
