< April 30 May 2 >

May 1

Category:DNA BEING KEY IN CASES

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: speedy delete as empty. – Fayenatic London 19:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Guess why :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2013 (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:Puerto Rican short story writers

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 19:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Again, a bottom rung of the ladder issue. Per WP:EGRS, ethnic subdivision cats should not be created if they are the last cat on the tree, and if the parent cat cannot be further diffused. This is one such example. End the ghettoization! Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a very good point. Ok, let's wait for others to weigh in - there may be a case here for a by-nationality-more-or-less subcat of American for puerto ricans, given that country's status. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Scotland and Puerto Rico are countries, albeit non-sovereign ones. They compete as such in a number of international fora.--MacRùsgail (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2013 (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:Christian liturgy, rites, and worship services

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. While not a perfect solution, this is the consensus. With that in place, editors are free to create subcategories and move articles as needed to finish the cleanup. If the target needs tagging as ((Container category)) feel free to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Christian liturgy is "a pattern for worship", and Christian rites redirects to Christian liturgy. "Worship" should cover all of these things more concisely. JFH (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So because it doesn't fix everything that ails this section of WP we shouldn't make the change? Christian worship seems like a concept that should have a broad category. Category:Liturgy would include some non-Christian things and only some members of Category:Christian worship. I'm not sure how your desire for such a category is relevant to this nom. --JFH (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2013 (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-American Latter Day Saints

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: do not merge; nominator has withdrawn. A rename to Category:Black Mormons may be appropriate, as noted below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note nominator also has a history of being an obsessive, hasty and overzealous deletionist, and like many such people as usual has not bothered to list it on the relevant Wikiprojects or told the category creator so it can be discussed properly by interested and informed parties. Please do so in future.MacRùsgail (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your personal attack is shameful. The nominator self-identifies as a Mormon, so it's probably factually inaccurate to boot. The fact that the Mormon church discriminated against African Americans does not make the category sustainable, any more than Category:Mexican Roman Catholics with Aztec ancestry or Category:African American Baptists or Category:Divorced Roman Catholics or Category:Gay (pick a religion), etc. A valid article topic is religion's discrimatory behavior and theology, but not categorizing people by "victim" and "organization unit that victimized them (or used to do so)" Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fact: The nominator has listed it on neither the LDS nor the African American projects as he should. (I will rectify that shortly) Fact: There was specific doctrinal mentions of blacks in Mormon theology, so your second assertion is a category error. Fact: African Americans have run campaigns on this issue, and there are specific groups such as the (Actually there have been "gay" etc categories, if you care to check)
I do not see it as a personal attack, as the nominator is yet another one of the folk who hang around here all the time. If I criticise someone for their actions and conscious choices, I am entitled to.--MacRùsgail (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. Why are virtually no nominations on here listed on the relevant Wikiprojects? That's shameful.[reply]
Then there is Category:South African Latter Day Saints where 2/3rds are ethnically "African", but that is 2 of 3 people so it really does not need to be split.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2013 (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:People of Latin American descent

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: it sounds like in general, there is a desire to have both Category:People of Latin American descent and Category:People of South American descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename delete. We have existing category groupings that are by continent (e.g. Category:People of Asian descent, Category:People of Oceanian descent, and sub-continental regions (e.g. Category:People of South Asian descent). This is the only one that doesn't fit, and partially duplicates/overlaps Category:People of South American descent and Category:People of North American descent. Suggest delete. There are bigger problems of duplication between the South American/Latin American trees, but I'm not proposing to address all of those here - just cleaning up a specific corner. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. People of Costa Rican descent are Latin American, but not South American
  2. People of Guyanan descent are South American, but not Latin American
  3. People of Ecuadoran descent are both South American and Latin American.
In general, I have no opposition to the creation of the South American category, just opposition to the deletion of the Latin American category. As such, I am not sure renaming is the proper avenue here, since the two categories are of differing scopes pbp 16:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, having both is another option, but I was hoping to avoid that. In this case, I don't really see the value. Another problem is, there are contested definitions of what Latin America means - whereas South America is pretty clear cut.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Massive cultural areas are more useful, though, and have more commonalities. A person from Colombia has more in common with someone from Costa Rica than he does from Guyana pbp 20:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That statement carries a lot of assumptions. It may be true, but not convinced it's useful in this scheme.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I did indeed read the contents - as you'll note above, I proposed moving the central american ones to a new cat, which we be a subcat of North America- so this is a rename and a change of scope. just to me it doesn't make sense to have a bunch of continental-based categories, and one non-continental one. It's like 4 apples and an orange.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2013 (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:California Law Review people

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is overcategorization by a non-defining characteristic. It's also plausibly overcat by award and it's a species of "performance", since it's a type of job duty. While being on law review during law school is an honor (usually but not always a selective process) it is not "defining" of the person, even during law school. They are not made notable by their work on the law review; they are made notable after law school, and they are certainly not defined by being on law review. Moreover, it's not exactly a long-standing affiliation, like membership in a National Academy would be: It's typically one to two years. I'm choosing this one because I was at Boalt which publishes CLR, but the same reasoning applies to all the law reviews. Membership on a law review should be noted in the individual biographical entries, and the law review article should list the most prominent members. If appropriate separate lists of members might be warranted. Lquilter (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That someone is on a law review is a notable fact, supported by the volumes of the journals themselves (which are reliable references), and notability is not temporary. The fact that so many biographies explicitly name that a person was a member of a law review as a point of notable interest raises the necessity of this category.
Thirdly, changing these categories to lists would require too much duplication, as you have to use a reference to show that a person was on the review, which duplicates the reference on the main biographical page of the person, creating a situation where you are saying the exact same thing twice on two different pages. However it is perfectly natural for an institution to have its notable alumni noted on their Wikipedia page, and being on Wikipedia denotes notability. Therefore a category allows the "listing" of such review members without the duplicative nature of using a list on the pages of the individual Reviews.
Fourthly, claiming that the category should be merged or deleted merely because law reviews are run by students simply ignores the realities of legal scholarship in North America. These are the top academic journals in the field, and their place is not secondary to professional journals in other fields merely because there is a difference in how the legal field has preferred its academic backbone to develop.
I see no actual arguments here against having the categories, other than "I don't think being on a law review is all that important" and "I can't see why we need to point out membership in the category section", but no real evidence or significant policy arguments against having this category. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Lquilter (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I obviously disagree that law review membership does not define how the world views a person's law school career, but that is a matter of opinion. If you look at the written biographies of many people who went to law school, it absolutely ranks as the defining aspect of their law school careers. You are saying it defines them to their peers, but then separate this from the outside world--which is made up largely by their peers or people from similar backgrounds. I was also responding to all above comments, not just yours, but stating that law reviews do not have the impact of journals run by professional associations or professors is not supported by anything and is pure speculation. But finally, let's take a look at OVERCAT. It dissuades categories that are a) small with no potential for growth (not relevant here, as can be seen by the more than 440 members of various law review categories); b) not defining, meaning something that articles about a person would not repeatedly claim about said person OR that something is not appropriate for a lead (when a full feature on a lawyer or politician is done, regarding their full career, law review membership will likely appear; and in a proper lead for a long article, it would absolutely be appropriate to have law review membership); c) items with only a narrow intersection (not relevant here); and so forth. None are relevant here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reading OVERCAT. Nobody is claiming the other OVERCAT issues, only "not defining". As to that, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I've known many lawyers, law professors, and law students, and spend a considerable amount of time on Wikipedia working on categories, and I really, strongly feel that this is exactly a type of WP:OVERCAT by non-defining features. Notable and important, sure. Defining, not so much. I don't think of famous lawyers or jurists and think of their law review tenures or even what law reviews they were on, and frankly, I would be surprised at anyone who did. It's certainly an important topic for a resume, as is a 4.0 GPA and graduating top of the class, but none of those things constitute "defining" qualities. --Lquilter (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to disagree is fine by me, but that shouldn't be an argument for deletion. I'm saying that feature biographies on lawyers will mention either LR membership or clerkships as defining a student career and first legal successes, and we already have clerkships as a category. "Defining" means the subject wouldn't be out of place in a lead paragraph, or would be found in the general coverage of a person, which LR membership often is. So by policy, I think arguing against LR membership as defining is tenuous.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2013 (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:Costume Designers Guild Award winners

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify. Per WP:OVERCAT#Award, this is overcategorization by award. Here, the two costume designers so categorized have both won other awards, including the Tony & Academy. While all of these awards are notable and worthy of lists, they are not "defining" of their subjects. Moreover, this award category actually includes multiple separate awards, so it's inaccurately named -- it includes both annual and lifetime awards. Some of the annual awards shows have their own entries with lists, and that's the better way to handle these awards. Lquilter (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2013 (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:Winners of the Sir Arthur Clarke Award

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OVERCAT#Award, this is overcategorization. The award winners are already listed at Sir Arthur Clarke Award. This award, for space exploration etc., is awarded to things and people as diverse as the BBC News, science fiction writer Ray Bradbury, the Automated Transfer Vehicle, societies, scholars, and so forth. While the award is lovely and a great thing to receive, it is not a defining quality of these diverse entities. The appropriate way to handle them is already in place -- the list. Lquilter (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2013 (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:Whistleblowers charged under Espionage Act of 1917

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. I have also listified it in the "see also" section of Espionage Act of 1917 in case anyone wants to develop this further. – Fayenatic London 13:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Whistleblowers charged under Espionage Act of 1917 to Category:Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The identification of those charged as whistleblowers is not all that clear-cut, and I would imagine that for instance the identification of Bradley Manning as a whistleblower is contested. Indeed, the only subset that is sharply defined are those who passed information to specific foreign governments (e.g. Jonathan Pollard). At any rate it seems to me that, if there are to be subcategories, they need to be thought through a bit further. Note that both categories involved are up for speedy renaming. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2013 (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:Kapamilya Stars

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Kapamilya Stars to Category:ABS-CBN Corporation talents
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Kapamilya" is an informal word used to name TV personalities of ABS-CBN. -WayKurat (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No move needed. Category should be deleted. The category is clearly created by a fan of the ABS-CBN network. One side of a strong network rivalry in the Philippines. The said network rivalry is very evident in the filmography tables also where fans of one network would specify the network in the 'Notes' column of an actor's filmography table or alternatively would create a separate 'Network' column on the filmography table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Francis (talk • contribs)
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:People of Black Nova Scotian descent

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The difference between these two cats is not clear. The header on Category:Black Nova Scotians says "This is a category for Black Nova Scotians, those of full Black Nova Scotian ancestry or of partial ancestry who self-identify themselves as Black Nova Scotian. For people of partial ancestry whose self-identity is not verifiable see Category:People of Black Nova Scotian descent." Why is self-identity important here? I find it strange that we categorize some people based on something that they themselves haven't signed up to. I think we should categorize based on what sources say - if they say X is a black nova scotian, he goes into the box; otherwise, not. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Black Nova Scotian has a special meaning here, as a defined ethnic group.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we had New York Jews as an article, your comparison might work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps we should delete Category:People of Black Nova Scotian descent instead? I'm not sure "descent of" in this case is defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2013 (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:Espionage charges for leaking under Obama

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 to Category:Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 – Fayenatic London 13:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Even if this wasn't rather poorly named, the fact remains that it's far too narrow to serve as an acceptable category. Cgingold (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2013 (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:Vanderbilt Law Review people

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. Merge to parent category of Category:Vanderbilt University Law School alumni GrapedApe (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The category will grow over time, as there have been thousands of Vanderbilt alumni that were also Review members. It's also a category that is of public interest and separates a specifically definable subset of people--if athletes can be subcategorized, why not the top academic individuals of the student body? Law review members are the academic equivalent of athletes at universities, so it makes sense to follow that precedent. This category also encourages Review membership to be included on upcoming pages or on current pages where it is appropriate, which could be something that adds quality details to existing pages.Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That someone is on a law review is a notable fact, supported by the volumes of the journals themselves (which are reliable references), and notability is not temporary. The fact that so many biographies explicitly name that a person was a member of a law review as a point of notable interest raises the necessity of this category.
Thirdly, changing these categories to lists would require too much duplication, as you have to use a reference to show that a person was on the review, which duplicates the reference on the main biographical page of the person, creating a situation where you are saying the exact same thing twice on two different pages. However it is perfectly natural for an institution to have its notable alumni noted on their Wikipedia page, and being on Wikipedia denotes notability. Therefore a category allows the "listing" of such review members without the duplicative nature of using a list on the pages of the individual Reviews.
Fourthly, claiming that the category should be merged or deleted merely because law reviews are run by students simply ignores the realities of legal scholarship in North America. These are the top academic journals in the field, and their place is not secondary to professional journals in other fields merely because there is a difference in how the legal field has preferred its academic backbone to develop.
I see no actual arguments here against having the categories, other than "I don't think being on a law review is all that important" and "I can't see why we need to point out membership in the category section", but no real evidence or significant policy arguments against having this category. The above arguments do not show significant knowledge of law reviews nor of their frequent use as notable facts on Wikipedia (sometimes as one of the only facts on a page). Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point-by-point response is above in the CLR people category discussion, but to sum up, Jeremy112233, please review WP:OVERCAT, particularly WP:DEFINING. The most important point is that categorization is not based on the standard "notability" but on the standard "defining". Whether law review membership is notable or not, it is most certainly not "defining". --Lquilter (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OVERCAT does not apply, in repetition of my statement for the other entry on this page: OVERCAT dissuades categories that are a) small with no potential for growth (not relevant here, as can be seen by the more than 440 members of various law review categories); b) not defining, meaning something that articles about a person would not repeatedly claim about said person OR that something is not appropriate for a lead (when a full feature on a lawyer or politician is done, regarding their full career, law review membership will likely appear; and in a proper lead for a long article, it would absolutely be appropriate to have law review membership); c) items with only a narrow intersection (not relevant here); and so forth. None are relevant here.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading OVERCAT. Nobody is claiming the other OVERCAT issues, only "not defining". As to that, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I've known many lawyers, law professors, and law students, and spend a considerable amount of time on Wikipedia working on categories, and I really, strongly feel that this is exactly a type of WP:OVERCAT by non-defining features. Notable and important, sure. Defining; not so much. I don't think of famous lawyers or jurists and think of their law review tenures or even what law reviews they were on, and frankly, I would be surprised at anyone who did. It's certainly an important topic for a resume, as is a 4.0 GPA and graduating top of the class, but none of those things constitute "defining" qualities. --Lquilter (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree is fine by me, but that shouldn't be an argument for deletion. I'm saying that feature biographies on lawyers will mention either LR membership or clerkships as defining a student career and first legal successes, and we already have clerkships as a category. "Defining" means the subject wouldn't be out of place in a lead paragraph, or would be found in the general coverage of a person, which LR membership often is. So by policy, I think arguing against LR membership as defining is tenuous.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were right! I was wrong. Seriously. --Lquilter (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2013 (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:Victorian women poets and novelists

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per guidance at Wikipedia:EGRS#Other_considerations, these are last-rung-of-the-ladder categorizations that serve to ghettoize. Recommend upmerge to parents and delete. I am for now proposing to keep Category:Victorian women writers, because the head cat (which I just created),Category:Victorian writers, is likely diffusable, so there won't be an issue of ghettoization. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any thing else to put in the 'by era' category. This would imply creating Category:18th-century women novelists as a subset of Category:18th-century novelists and Category:18th-century women writers, and all of that as a subset of Category:18th-century writers - and more importantly, this violates the current guidance. Whether it is interesting or not for scholarship is IMHO irrelevant - as noted earlier, there are upteen things which are interesting for scholarship but which the categorization guidelines do not allow b/c of overcat or ghettoization. If you think the guidance should be changed, then join the conversation there - I also think it should be changed - but until then these last-rungs have to go - the guidance is clear on that point. FWIW I moved the novelists by era nomination below, so you can move your comment there and vote separately.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (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:Women novelists by era

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale - (moved from above) Only one member (up for deletion above) and likely no scope for expansion. After the brouhaha, I don't see us creating further gendered/novelist/by century cats in the novelist tree. We have Category:Women writers by historical period and Category:Women writers by century, slicing this further by gender+novelists+time period is IMHO a step too far.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (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.
More