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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Major shareholders of Yahoo! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We recently deleted Category:Shareholders of Yahoo! here. So now we get "Major shareholders of Yahoo!", presumably to solve the problem of a shareholders category being potentially enormous. Unfortunately, this creates another problem: how do we define "major"? Another issue that remains is that holding shares in a particular company just isn't that defining for any individual or company. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons given in the last nomination and this. "Major" is a problem word, and owning shares in a company isn't defining. If someone wants to note in Yahoo! that X or Y owns Z% of the shares, probably fine; similarly if they want to note in the article about X that it owns Z% of Yahoo shares, probably fine; but it's not the stuff from which categories are made. Bencherlite^Talk 23:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Bencherlite. Since "major" has no precise definition, the inclusion criterion for this category necessarily will be either subjective, arbitrary or both. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think in the US "Major" does have an exact definition: it's the point at which they need to be reported to the SEC for public companies. I think that would be appropriate article content but I'm not sure of the need for a category. The relationship between different notable businesses is relevant encyclopedic content in general, and we normally do include it in articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the SEC does have some definitions for "major shareholder" in law and regulations, but my understanding is that that definition varies depending on the particular situation. It might be 15% for some purposes and only 3% for others, with some standards in between. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This means you could have in theory 33 major shareholders at any given time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ephemera. Buying and selling large blocks of stock is done constantly; let people keep track of this through the WSJ or SEC filings. Mangoe (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being a major shareholding in anything is not ever defining. This is especially true because there is no non-arbitrary definition of "major" in this case. Also, expecially because as a category once achieved it always applies, this will lead to some wealthy individuals potentially belonging in hundreds of such categories. If this works for Yahoo it can work for lots and lots of companies. Does that road lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category doesn't have a clear delineated definition.Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hard to define precisely and hard to keep track of. Also likely to be non-defining for most investors. Pichpich (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too many definitional problems, and it's unlikely that this is a defining characteristic of most of the shareholders. As JPL points out, adopting this type of category could cause massive category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 29 May 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Battles of the Forrest's Expedition into West Tennessee of the American Civil War to Category:Forrest's Expedition into West Tennessee
  • Category:Battles of Forrest's Expedition into West Tennessee and Kentucky of the American Civil War to Category:Forrest's Expedition into West Tennessee and Kentucky

Nominator's rationale: Set categories might be useful if categories about other aspects of Forrest's Expeditions existed. They do not, however, and so these categories should be converted into topic categories. The proposed changes not only shorten the titles considerably but also make them a more natural fit within the structures of Category:Campaigns of the American Civil War and Category:Expeditions of the American Civil War.

'Forrest's Expedition into West Tennessee' and 'Forrest's Expedition into West Tennessee and Kentucky' are the names used by (see here) the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission of the American Battlefield Protection Program.

If there is no consensus, then the first category should be renamed to remove the extra 'the'. "Forrest's" refers to Nathan Bedford Forrest and needn't be preceded by the definite article. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. 76.7.228.247 (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2012 (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. Although the !votes wound up even, deletion is preferred by the nominator, and two of the three !votes for renaming are WP:JUSTAVOTEs by IPs. "Per nom" is a perfectly valid rationaile (heck, I do it a lot), but the overall consensus here, including that of the nom in the end, favors deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Battles of the Operations in North Alabama of the American Civil War to Category:Operations in North Alabama

Nominator's rationale: A set category might be useful if there existed categories about other aspects of the Mobile Campaign. There do not, however, and so this category should be made a topic category. The proposed change not only shortens the title considerably, but also makes it a more natural fit within the structure of Category:Campaigns of the American Civil War.

'Operations in North Alabama' is the name used by (see here) the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission of the American Battlefield Protection Program.

Another, perhaps better, option would be to simply delete this single-member category. Upmerging would not be required since the sole member, Battle of Athens (1864), already appears in Category:Battles of the Western Theater of the American Civil War and Category:Alabama in the American Civil War. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nominator's rationale. Altairisfar (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wild Wolf (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is not enough here to justify a campaign category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Operations in North Alabama. 76.7.228.247 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we have too many levels of categorization, this one should be thrown out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I had a chance today to examine more closely the structure of Category:Campaigns of the American Civil War, and I agree with your statement wholeheartedly. The structure-to-content ratio is too high. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Operations in North Alabama per nom. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your meaning, but it's not quite "per nom". Having had an opportunity to look more closely at the American Civil War campaigns category tree, I favor deletion over renaming. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:44, 30 May 2012 (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 to Category:Mobile Campaign (American Civil War). Timrollpickering (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Battles of the Mobile Campaign of the American Civil War to Category:Mobile Campaign or Category:Mobile Campaign (American Civil War)

Nominator's rationale: A set category might be useful if there existed categories about other aspects of the Mobile Campaign. There do not, however, and so this category should be made a topic category. The proposed change not only shortens the title considerably, but also makes it a more natural fit within the structure of Category:Campaigns of the American Civil War.

'Mobile Campaign' is the name used by (see here) the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission of the American Battlefield Protection Program. I think that Category:Mobile Campaign is the best title; however, if that is considered to be too ambiguous, because it could possibly refer to a mobile campaign or a military campaign that is mobile, then parenthetical disambiguation – Category:Mobile Campaign (American Civil War) – can be employed. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename – to Category:Mobile Campaign (American Civil War) to avoid possible confusion as suggested above and to avoid ambiguity with other "campaigns" (by Spain in 1780, by the U.S. in 1813) to take Mobile during other points in its history. Altairisfar (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Mobile Campaign. I think it's overprotective to add the disambiguator to this one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Mobile Campaign (American Civil War), because "Mobile Campaign" is clearly ambiguous with Mobile campaign, and also ambiguous with the other meanings listed by Altairisfar and Black Falcon. Category names should be distinguished from each other by something more significant than the capitalisation of one letter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 30 May 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Battles of the Goldsboro Expedition of the American Civil War to Category:Goldsboro Expedition
  • Category:Battles of the Meridian and Yazoo River Expeditions of the American Civil War to Category:Meridian and Yazoo River Expeditions

Nominator's rationale: Set categories might be useful if categories about other aspects of the Goldsboro Expedition and Meridian and Yazoo River Expeditions existed. There do not, however, and so these categories should be converted into topic categories. The proposed changes not only shorten the titles considerably but also make them a more natural fit within the structure of Category:Campaigns of the American Civil War.

'Goldsboro Expedition' and 'Meridian and Yazoo River Expeditions' are the names used by (see here) the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission of the American Battlefield Protection Program. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. 76.7.228.247 (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Albums produced by MIke Mosley... Mike Mosley (producer)
• Category:Albums produced by Schife... Schife
• Category:Albums produced by Tone Capone... Tone Capone
• Category:Albums produced by DJ Montay... DJ Montay
• Category:Albums produced by Sam Bostic... Sam Bostic

Nominator's rationale: None of these music producers have articles. QuasyBoy (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedent that we don't do "Albums produced by X" unless X has an article. There is also precedent that we don't do "Albums produced by X" unless X has multiple solo production credits — and these all appear to be hip hop albums, a genre notorious for having 50 producers per album. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if the articles existed, it would be wrong to categorize most of these albums as "produced by X" when X was responsible for a single track. Pichpich (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Battles of the Main Eastern Theater of the American Civil War to Category:Battles of the Eastern Theater of the American Civil War
• Propose renaming Category:Campaigns of the Main Eastern Theater of the American Civil War to Category:Campaigns of the Eastern Theater of the American Civil War
• Propose renaming Category:Battlefields of the Main Eastern Theater of the American Civil War to Category:Battlefields of the Eastern Theater of the American Civil War
• Propose renaming Category:Battles of the Main Western Theater of the American Civil War to Category:Battles of the Western Theater of the American Civil War
• Propose renaming Category:Campaigns of the Main Western Theater of the American Civil War to Category:Campaigns of the Western Theater of the American Civil War

Nominator's rationale: To match parent category. Wild Wolf (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I combined the nominations because I think they have the same content.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. 76.7.228.247 (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2012 (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: speedy rename at creator's request. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just created Category:Short-rate model, but, with hindsight would have preferred the name "Category:Short-rate models" (plural). Please rename if possible. Thanks and apologies. Fintor (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2012 (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, listifying if desired. Arguments favoring deletion make a more convincing case than the keep arguments. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Streisand Effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Defined as "instances where censorship has resulted in the Streisand Effect being invoked." This is much to subjective a call to be a category. What level of attention has to be drawn to the subject matter by the attempted censorship? What qualifies as "attempted censorship"? It's just too squishy a concept and too much of a judgment call in each case. It looks to me like someone has taken the list of examples in Streisand effect and applied it to everything linked in the section. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – subjective, arbitrary etc. Oculi (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Listify of wanted and referenced). That said, I could see this category name (not current inclusion criteria) might be useful for articles directly related to the Streisand Effect, rather than (as it does now) include anything subjectively thought to have had such an effect. - jc37 09:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not sure it (the concept) is necessarily subjective. We can define censorship, either through courts or otherwise - and we can define something that has gone viral, or achieved notoriety (in much the same way we can define music as "popular"). Streisand Effect is the consequence of one as an action of the other, and therefore relatively easy to define and thus, categorize. --Stuart Steedman (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe, but Category:Censorship isn't filled with every example of censorship we think we can think of. (Instead it is (mostly) filled with types of censorship.) So why should Category:Streisand Effect be filled with every example of the Streisand Effect we think we can think of? - jc37 11:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You make a good point, but to be fair, there are reams of Categories that do go on to list specific instances: Category:Vandalized_works_of_art for instance. Perhaps then suggest a rename of the Category to imply this, such as, "Streisand Effect Victims" (maybe Victims is a bit POV but you catch my drift) --Stuart Steedman (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Such a category would likely be listified due to the concerns others note above. Due to technical limitations, categories can't show references for each member of the category. But lists can. Does each potential member of this new category you're suggesting have such references showing how this is something defining for each of them? - jc37 12:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So your suggestion is to listify rather than categorize? --Stuart Steedman (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If referenced, I think it has a better chance in that format. Though note that a list already exists as part of the article: Streisand_effect#Examples. So you might want to consider expanding and further referencing there, before considering creating a separate list page (per WP:SS). You may also find WP:LIST helpful. - jc37 12:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Oculi. Subjective. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most delete !votes are basing their argument on the subjectivity of the category. But many things are subjective yet are perfectly acceptable. Even labeling a person as a criminal is subjective (it is merely the opinion of a jury/court) but we don't disallow it on WP because we generally accept a court's subjective opinion to be authorotative. Similarly when mainstream media (Reliable Sources) have invoked the Streisand Effect when discussing the subject/event I see no reason to reject labelling an article with this category. Roger (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, when someone is convicted in court, that "subjective" determination is given the force of the law of the government jurisdiction, so it becomes relatively hardened and much more difficult to criticise as a subjective opinion. This is far from the case with this particular issue. Besides, as pointed out, this is categorizing things that have been allegedly subject to the Streishand effect, whereas the category is named as if it will contain articles related to the effect itself. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too vague to be the basis of a category. This works best as a short list in the corresponding article. Pichpich (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. There is no clear threshold for inclusion in the category , so it ends up being either arbitrary or subjective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 29 May 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ethology projects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Onlt one article is relevant and no real chance of expansion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:02, 23 May 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In a 2012 MAY 14 CFD, there was consensus to use "Israeli people of FOOian descent" rather than "Israeli people of FOOian origin". This would conform the Israeli categories to those for all other nationalities and would reverse a 2010 JUL 19 CFD. Many of the target categories are presently category redirects. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• agree with renameRafikiSykes (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename – per everything else in Category:People of British descent say. (IMO, the rationale for the rename in 2010, "The word "descent" denotes ethnicity" is not the case: descent denotes previous citizenship and there is no implication of ethnicity.) Oculi (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per my rationale in the CfD from two weeks ago. The original move to "origin" was a mistake that should be corrected. Pichpich (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename descent has been used to denote location of ancestors. I would point out we currently have some cases of "Pakistani descent" with people whose ancestors never lived in Pakistan. The fact of the matter is that many people in the US in "American of x descent" cats would not belong through strict ethnic categories. Of course, how long do your ancestors have to have lived in Mexico or Argentina to qualify as ethnically of those places? On the other hand with the tracing of Judaism through the mother, how many Jews coming from Germany to Istrael had non-Jewish German ancestors?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. 'descent' can mean either citizenship or ethnicity of predecessors Mayumashu (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2012 (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: Keep. Arguments for keeping are strong and convincing; the primary argument for deletion seems to be WP:WHOCARES - which, right or wrong, society does. No comment on the argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFMUSTBECREATED if kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose discussing Category:Gay musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose discussing Category:Lesbian musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose discussing Category:Bisexual musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose discussing Category:Transgender and transsexual musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, as this is a slightly different situation than some of the other recent LGBT occupational splits. Due to the sheer size and scope of the unified category, which would contain over 1,000 articles if fully populated (unlike some of the others which have less than 100 in total), musicians are one of the few occupations for which Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT has historically supported splitting them into distinct categories for each quadrant of the community, on size management grounds, rather than keeping everybody directly filed in a single "LGBT musicians" category. However, what happened some time ago is that Category:Gay musicians got nominated for CFD and deleted in isolation, with the L, B and T categories remaining in place — and more recently, another user recreated it. (Note also for the record that it has not been fully repopulated yet, so don't judge it on size alone as its current size is still only a fraction of its ultimate size.)

Accordingly, that's the real point of this nomination: while I personally favour keeping the categories since the LGBT project does desire them in this particular case, I can accept if consensus goes against them — however, Category:Gay musicians must not be speedy deleted as a recreation of a deleted category as long as Category:Lesbian musicians, Category:Bisexual musicians and Category:Transgender and transsexual musicians remain in place. Anything that would result in some of them being allowed and others not is absolutely unacceptable — either all four must exist or all four must be deleted, and accordingly we need to revisit this so that a clear consensus is established either to apply the prior deletion across all four of them, or to overturn it on the "gay" category.

Again, I personally favour the keep option, but they must be considered and treated as a group, and not as individual cases with opposing precedents. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think they are perfectly relevant classifications. I agree with the above statements also that it should be all four kept or all four deleted. The reason I recreated gay musicians was i found it rather strange to have the other three but not it.RafikiSykes (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What does desiring to have sex with persons of both sexes have to do with playing an instrument? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About ten thousand things, including who the musician's fan base is or isn't going to be (frex, how an openly gay country singer is going to lose some of the "traditionalist" base of country music fans, etc.), how they're going to be perceived as fitting into the marketplace, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per —User:Koavf. Sexual orientation (or whatever the PC term is this week) should only be used to categorise people when it is specifically relevant. Being gay or whatever has no bearing on also being a singer, guitarist, pianist, etc. The intersection between sexual identity and occupation is not useful in this case. I can only think of very few cases where sexual orientation or gender identity is relevant to a person's occupation. If these cats are allowed to exist then categories for "heterosexual <insert any occupation>" must also be created. Roger (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Entertainment, especially popular entertainment, is one of the fields where sexuality is often perceived as relevant. People are interested in it, and its not just voyeurism. That this is of encyclopedic relevance is shown by the many discussions over article content bearing on this. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. This is a relevant intersection, as shown by the content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Koavf.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG and Bearcat. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 27 May 2012 (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.