< December 2	December 4 >

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: Keep. If there are concerns about it being oversized, then it could, possibly, become a container category (see Category:Jet aircraft, for instance), but consenus appears to be for keep regardless of size. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is unhelpful, will be far too large, and is already populated by misplaced articles. It is equivalent to a category for animal species with separate males and females. Even for plants, this is a huge percentage and could result in more than 100,000 members. This would be better handled by an organized list. EncycloPetey (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I saw the new category pop up on my watchlist and noticed the misapplication, but that's not a reason to delete. I disagree that it isn't helpful and it seems a perfectly natural category as it describes a major component of a plant's life history. As for scope, it won't be too large. In angiosperms, the largest plant clade, the estimate is that only 6% of plants are dioecious, and many of those can be categorized by the genus article since all members of the genus are dioecious, e.g. instead of adding the category to all ~120 Nepenthes articles, we'd only add it to the genus article, but that has to be carefully applied since there are many genera where dioecy is present in most but not all species. Rkitko ^(talk) 19:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Won't be too large? 6% of 250,000 is still 15,000 species, and that's an estimate only for the angiosperms. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, if only included on genus articles where all members are dioecious, that significantly reduces the number of articles this would need to be applied to. 400 species of willow would be represented by one article in the category. I still don't think this is unmanageable. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would this category be considered for deletion? It is a very important category as dioecious plants are a minority in the plant kingdom. I've spent a lot of time populating this category with notable genera and species. It is very important to group these plants together for understanding plant sexuality, plant evolution, breeding and cultivation, and the conservation of many plant species.--99.68.137.198 (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being a minority does not make them "important". Spending a lot of time on something is not a reason against deletion. You assert that it is an important group to have, but that doesn't mean the category is needed; this is better handled through a list than a category. For one, a list would require far less monitoring for miss-appliaction. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The solution for an overlarge category is the creation of subcategories, not deletion. Inclusion criteria are clear, and if I understand Dioecy correctly, the status of being dioecious is quite defining. Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate category, even if it may be a large one. I am not a botanist, but assume there are some gnera or even families where all members belong to the category. In that case, it should be the highest possible taxononic classifiaction (if I have the correct term) that appears, or a category for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, it will take huge amount of time and effort to be completed and be of very little use to readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must have a very low opinion of our readers; many of our readers that would use this category are botanists, amateur or professional. Time and effort are not valid reasons to delete something. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]