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 the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of low-radiation smartphones there is no reliable criteria for inclusion in this category. The "low-radiation" definition used to determine inclusion is not backed up by any reliable sources. The only reliable criteria is FCC or CENELEC standards, which are used to certify every phone sold in the US and EU respectively, such that this category becomes simply "smartphones" and would include every mobile device sold, and that is redundant and runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR. Ivanvector (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. There's no reliable way to meaningfully judge whether any particular smartphone is "low radiation". You could make a category for phones that advertise themselves as low radiation, but I see no reason to have that category either.AioftheStorm (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom: a category of phones that advertise themselves as low-radiation would be inherently spammy. Ivanvector (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete If a list isn't viable, neither is a category. It also seems to me that this is essentially a product review category. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This feels like forum shopping. Ivan, I'm disappointed that you re-raise the idea that we don't have a RS, as the FCC was provided as an RS for the SAR values, and updated list of 20 lowest radiation cellphones was provided by Enric Naval as a list of the 20 lowest radiation cellphones. The idea seems discredited to me. No? --Elvey (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can objectively list phones in order of lowest radiation to highest radiation, but we cannot objectively determine where on that list a phone should be considered low-radiation since the concept of "low-radiation" is not clearly defined in any reliable sources. Would we include the lowest 10 phones, would we include the lowest 30 phones? Any decision would ultimately by arbitrary and WP:OR.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind I reformatted your comment, I missed part of it the first time I glanced at it and thought it would be helpful to other readers to make it line up. As I said in the AfD, I agree that the FCC is reliable for the SAR values, but not for the low-radiation definition. The CNET article doesn't give a "low-radiation" definition either, it's just an arbitrary number of phones that rated the lowest as of 6 months ago. In the absence of reliable criteria to separate low-radiation smartphones from other smartphones, this category is synthesis. As for forum shopping, I have nominated the category and several redirects for discussion through the separate processes as it was appropriate to do so, though my concern is the same. If that's forum shopping then you can slap me. Ivanvector (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- The category involves POV: how low is "low"? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2014 (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:weak consenus to rename, but no consensus on splitting. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mostly concerned with modern-day nationality identities at first glance, while ethnicity side deals with historical/cultural/racial/etc/ factors not limited to geo-politics. Example: Fictional American people (by state) is a nationality, which is further overlap/diffused by Fictional Americans by ethnicity. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split into separate sub-cats for nationality and ethnicity. They are different concepts and multi-subject categories should be avoided. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose split neutral on rename. Any attempt to distinguish ethnicity and nationality in fictional subjects is liable to raise major POV issues. My preference is to keep, but amend the headnote to say that it covers ethnicity and nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2014 (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 aquatic competitions hosted in Spain[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 title has a grammar error in Dark Sun (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Proper grammar would be "hosted by Spain" or "held in Spain", though the latter could potentially mean something different. Ivanvector (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both to Category:Aquatic competitions in Spain per BrownHairedGirl. Why are we building this tree from the lower, less likely to be populated categories. Start closer to the top and only create the logical subcategories if and when a need for them is demonstrated. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rename, either will work. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2014 (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 per nominator, all insecticides are chemicals.AioftheStorm (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. From the first sentence of insecticide: "An insecticide is a chemical used against insects." Thus all insecticides are by definition chemical insecticides. There is already a see-also to Category:Insect repellents which includes both chemical and non-chemical agents. Ivanvector (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 14:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There are also biological means of pest control. These may not be insecticides, but are closely related. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2014 (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.
