< May 6 May 8 >

May 7

[edit]

Category:Expert witnesses

[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: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 13:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this for anyone who has ever served as an expert witness or someone who perennially does so? This doesn't seem like a defining characteristic. BDD (talk) 23:59, 7 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:Vietnamese prostitutes

[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: do not rename (but without prejudice to a future nomination that includes a broader number of similar categories). (I think "sneaky in effect (but not in intent)" is a bit of an oxymoron. It would perhaps be better to avoid the word "sneaky" if one is suggesting the user is innocent.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a test nomination. If it passes, I will nominate the rest of the tree accordingly. Currently, there is a bit of a dual standard - male prostitutes are in "male prostitute" cats, while females sometimes are, but usually not. This is clearly a job where gender/sex matters, so I think the best solution would be to have equal, sibling trees of Category:Male prostitutes and Category:Female prostitutes, without any need for an overarching category for each country. But for now, I'm just testing to see if people agree that we don't need ungendered container categories, and that it would be better to create gendered ones and fully diffuse (additional genders could be added beyond male/female of course). The other option is to sub-cat everything (e.g. Vietnamese prostitutes with subcat Vietnamese female prostitutes), but that seems like a lot of maintenance work for not a lot of benefit. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As JPL says, the intent here is to see if there is agreement on *not* having a non-gendered parent here, and in renaming (if we don't rename, it will mean having to move all of the existing female prostitutes down into child categories. In my view, there isn't any reason to have a non-gendered container parent here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the tree, it's also pretty typical - most only have a handful of articles. The reason such a category can exist is an exception given, when part of a series.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so does that mean you wouldn't be averse to a fuller nomination of the whole tree? The argument for separating by gender is not a out who normally does this job, but because sex/gender is critical to the job itself - so it's better to be explicit - a similar thing was done With actors/actresses, and with several sports, since gender is a (rather) determining factor in those fields too. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read what I wrote? please don't call me sneaky. The first line is "This is a test nomination. If it passes, I will nominate the rest of the tree accordingly." It's rather tiresome to nominate a ton of country-tree-categories, when it's not clear where the consensus will lie. To your other point, I think there *are* cases where we have split fully by gender, such as sports and acting - I don't think these cats always have a non-gendered parent for each gendered sub-cat. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the substantive point, we have Category:Male actors and Category:Actressesas subcats of Category:Actors, and so on down the the tree. AFAIK, the same applies to sportspeople; if you have any examples to the contrary, please list them rather than making a vague wave.
On the procedural issue, please read what I wrote "sneaky in effect", rather than than intent. However tiresome it is to list all the affected categories, that's the only way to notify those who might be interested (and with judicious use of a text editor, it's not a lot of work). A "test" nomination of one single-article category is not a real test, because it will be noticed only CFD regulars. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 22 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:Female wartime nurses

[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: withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As a follow up a previous nom on Category:American Civil War nurses, I don't see any reason for this category to be gendered as female (esp when we don't have a male equivalent.). The whole nurses tree seems somewhat unisex, and there is an additional category Category:Male nurses which men can be put into, since presumably being male and a nurse is WP:DEFINING and the intersection itself is of interest. This situation is acceptable under our guidelines, because Category:Nurses itself is fully diffusable (by nationality), so as long as all Category:Male nurses are also elsewhere categorized we're ok. Sorry, back to the point - this one should be be renamed, no need for separate gender groupings here. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So how should we solve this? Category:American Civil War nurses is not gendered, so can't be a subcat. Perhaps we could create a new parent, Category:Wartime nurses, and create a Category:Male wartime nurses category underneath (and nongendered Category:American Civil War nurses as a sibling? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:02, 9 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:Eastern Orthodox Christians in the French Resistance

[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: delete (but merge first to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from France). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 28 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:Anti-fascist Roman Catholics

[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: upmerge to Category:Anti-fascists. Note that Category:German Catholics opposed to the Third Reich was tagged for discussion and apparently intended to be bundled with this, but wasn't clearly listed. I have untagged it, however there is no prejudice against immediate renomination of it if the nominator still believes it should be deleted or upmerged. The Bushranger One ping only 13:18, 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:Gay sportspeople

[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent Category:Sportsmen and for the sake of clarity, since "gay" can be and is applied to women as well as men. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm not sure. I've been reading lots of media reports recently about NFL players coming out of the closet. apparently it is a big deal, at least in certain sports. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the consensus is to avoid splitting LGBT, except in certain exceptions. This was one of the exceptions, since we divide sports by gender also.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It already exists: Category:Bisexual_sportspeople. If you think it goes to far, well, CFD is right this way sir... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:58, 9 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:Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences winners

[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: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 13:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OCAT#Award. Another prestigious award to receive that is non-defining, and more appropriately handled in a list on the award page, rather than as a category. The list can be sorted by year (and even include the auto-sort columns if appropriate), and include nominating information, which makes it much better than the category. Lquilter (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also May 8 CFD nominating the eponymous category for this award. (Apologies for not picking up on its existence when I nominated this category!) --Lquilter (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I am going to review other "minor awards". You may wish to review WP:OCAT which specifies that the criteria for categories is not "notability" or "importance" but whether the category is a "defining" attribute of someone; the subsection WP:OCAT#Award makes a few additional points about awards. Please note that this CFD is not discussing whether the award itself is notable, or whether the award does great things, or whether the people who receive the award find it notable -- just whether the "category" is a useful Wikipedia feature to apply to this award. Lists will in almost all cases be better than categories for organizing information, and the list here does a great job. --Lquilter (talk) 11:10, 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:Searle Scholars

[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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT#Award. The Searle Scholars program is another early career funding grant, awarded to 15 scholars / year (total around 450 now) that is prestigious, but not "defining" under the strict standards in WP:Categorization and overcategorization. Notable and worth including notable scholars / recipients in a list on the article about the program (and I will make sure that is done), but not appropriate for a category. Lquilter (talk) 14:49, 7 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:Sheffield and Hallamshire Senior Cup

[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: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 13:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category containing Sheffield and Hallamshire Senior Cup and no other articles. Tim! (talk) 06:05, 7 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:ECHL Hall of Fame inductees

[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: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 13:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#AWARD. The ECHL is described in its head article's lede both as a "mid-level league" and as a "minor league".
Whichever term is best, it's clear that excellence in the ECHL is a long way from the pinnacle of the sport of ice hockey.
A list already exists at ECHL Hall of Fame, and per WP:OC#AWARD that's sufficient. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 7 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:South Dakota Hall of Fame inductees

[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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify per WP:OC#AWARD, "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category."
I checked the 6 articles indexed under the letters H onwards (Ralph Herseth, Emil Loriks, George McGovern, Watson Parker, Richard F. Pettigrew, Sitting Bull) and see no indication that this award is a WP:DEFINING characteristic for any of them. Only two of the articles even mention this Hall of fame of in body text (Parker and Emil Loriks). In the case of Parker, the section on the HoF is clearly given WP:UNDUE weight.
A short list already exists at South Dakota Hall of Fame. That list should be expanded to include all members of this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 7 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:Oklahoma Hall of Fame inductees

[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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#AWARD, "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category."
In this case, it is hard to see how receipt of the award could be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of its recipients. The criteria listed at Oklahoma Hall of Fame include being "known for their public service throughout the state" and having "performed outstanding service to humanity, the State of Oklahoma and the United States". Anyone who meets those criteria will be defined by those attributes, rather than by whether or not they receives this award. I checked the 5 articles indexed under the letters G and H (Gregory Gerrer, Thomas Gore, Woody Guthrie, Erle P. Halliburton, V. Burns Hargis) and see no indication that this award is defining for any of them. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 7 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:Internet Hall of Fame inductees

[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: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 13:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#AWARD. I checked the 5 articles indexed under the letter K (Brewster Kahle, Bob Kahn, Peter T. Kirstein, Leonard Kleinrock, John Klensin), and in no case did I see any evidence that membership of the Internet Hall of Fame (est 2012) was a WP:DEFINING characteristic of those in the category. In the case of many others in the category (e.g. Tim Berners-Lee, Al Gore, Linus Torvalds, Phil Zimmermann, Craig Newmark, Vint Cerf), they were highly notable long before this award was created, and it would be absurd to even suggest that they are defined by having received it. The head article already includes a list. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 7 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:National Inventors Hall of Fame inductees

[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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#AWARD, award categories should be reserved for exceptional and high honours. In this case, I can see no evidence that induction into this Hall of Fame is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the people in this category. I checked 5 articles (Alexander Graham Bell, Clarence Birdseye, László Bíró, Paul Baran, and Robert Adler). Only Baran's bio even mentioned this HoF, and then only in a list of honours rather than in body text.
There is already an excellent List of National Inventors Hall of Fame inductees. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the text of articles in the category doesn't mention the award then that's even more reason to remove such articles from the category. DexDor (talk) 19:10, 7 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