< January 30	February 1 >

January 31

Category:Establishments in Borneo by year

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 one, merge the others (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Category:Establishments in Borneo by year to Category:Establishments in Malaysia by year
Category:1960 establishments in Borneo to Category:1960 establishments in Malaysia
Category:1973 establishments in Borneo to Category:1973 establishments in Malaysia
Category:1987 establishments in Borneo to Category:1987 establishments in Malaysia
Category:1990 establishments in Borneo to Category:1990 establishments in Malaysia
Category:1996 establishments in Borneo to Category:1996 establishments in Malaysia
Category:2016 establishments in Borneo to Category:2016 establishments in Malaysia

Nominator's rationale: The parent categories (Category:1960 establishments in Malaysia etc) are not sufficiently heavily populated to need subcats.
And if they were to be subcategorised, it would be much better to do so by province, rather than by the island of Borneo which is divided between 3 sovereign states. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good points for a merge JarrahTree 15:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support all except 1960 -- The 1960 item relates to the province of Sabah, which was then called British North Borneo, a province which did not join Malaysia until 1963. That item should become Category:1960 establishments in British North Borneo. I see no problem in this being parented (or grandparented) by the Malaysia category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate by Peterkingiron per nom & Peterkingiron. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2017 (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:New York City mayoral candidates, 2013

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 23:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:New York City mayoral candidates, 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, this category has no potential for growth. Also, per being a candidate in a certain municipal election is a non-defining characteristic of a given biography. TM 15:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: There are 12 entries, which is sufficient enough to sustain a category. The "not defining" argument does not hold water IMO, as several of the candidates have made a name for themselves holding or running for office. p b p 15:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the first one, Sal Albanese was placed "eighth out of nine candidates in the Democratic Party primary, receiving 0.9% of the vote". This is certainly not defining and it is surprising that it is mentioned in his article. Oculi (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I thought defining was determined by media coverage, of which there is plenty of Albanese's 2013 mayoral run. p b p 18:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, defining is something that could not be omitted from say a 200-word obit. Oculi (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, every article should be limited to five categories or less, which flies in the face of accepted categorization practices. Besides, Albanese's blurb would undoubtedly include the fact that he was a 4-time mayoral loser (5 times if he runs later this year). His mayoral run received coverage in reliable sources, so there's no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned in his Wikipedia article. Saying otherwise is just nonsensical. And it doesn't provide an argument for deletion of the category either. Just because you don't consider his run significant (even though it happened and was significant enough to be covered in reliable sources) only justifies removing the category from his page; it doesn't justify deleting the category. p b p 21:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be too bad to aim for a limit of five categories per article. Biographies in particular regularly contain a huge category clutter so that categories no longer serve their purpose of easily being able to navigate to related articles. In this particular case, we shouldn't categorize people by what they have not become (mayor) but what they have become (council member, politician, whatever). Delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage of local municipal politics always exists. The fact that Albanese got coverage of his mayoral run does not make him special, because covering local politics is local media's job, so no candidate in any city council election anywhere ever fails to garner coverage. So people are defined by political offices they hold, not by political offices they ran for and lost. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of the category size or quibbles about what would or wouldn't get mentioned in someone's obituary, being a non-winning mayoral candidate is not a notability claim in and of itself (no, not even in New York City). The people filed here do not have articles because mayoral candidate — they have articles because other things, and by the way also happened to be mayoral candidates. Which makes being a mayoral candidate non-defining in and of itself. I'll grant that the nominator's stated rationale is flawed — SMALLCAT doesn't apply to categories of 12, whether there's the potential for further growth or not — but what is relevant here is that "mayoral candidate" has no bearing on notability per se. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I think this whole "people don't have articles because they are mayoral candidates a) sets the bar for category creation/retention exceedingly high compared to past precedent, and b) is untrue, because there are plenty of non-winning candidates who have received enough coverage to pass GNG. Let me also counter with this: is not this category a useful navigational aid which a reader seeking to know more about the 2013 NYC mayor's race would use? p b p 20:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there aren't "plenty" of non-winning candidates who "received enough coverage to pass GNG" on the basis of campaign coverage alone — there are very few of those, in fact, because we explicitly deprecate campaign coverage as routine and not able to bring the GNG by itself outside of exceptional special cases on the order of the media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell. What there are a fair number of is people who already cleared a notability criterion for some other reason (e.g. already having preexisting notability as an actor, a musician, a writer, an athlete or a holder of a different notable political office), and then oh by the way also happened to also run as candidates in elections they didn't win. (That is, we don't have an article about Bernie Sanders because he was a losing candidate in the Democratic primary last year; we have an article about Bernie Sanders because he held office as a senator from Vermont, and his presidential run is just a supplementary detail about a person who had already passed WP:NPOL anyway.) And no, the category isn't necessary as a "navigational aid" to people whose notability isn't tied to this characteristic — the article about the election is the only navigational aid to the candidates' articles that we need in this instance. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat:: Not true. I don't know where you're getting hing the idea that election coverage can't be used to pass GNG. WP:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia: Notability (events) (of which WP:ROUTINE is a part) do not mention candidates, campaigns or elections in the manner you claim. WP:LOCAL is an essay. Therefore, it is my reading of notability guidelines that campaign coverage in reliable third-party sources is not deprecated and CAN be used to pass GNG. p b p 23:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes true. You also have to familiarize yourself with the reality of how GNG is actually deemed to apply in actual deletion discussions: an election is an event, and therefore coverage of its candidates in local media does fall under WP:ROUTINE unless and until a candidate can be shown as significantly more notable than the norm, for some substantive reason much more significant than "media coverage exists". Local coverage of local politics always exists, so if campaign coverage were all it took to pass GNG then we would always have to keep an article about every single candidate for any office at all because no candidate for any office ever fails to be the subject of local media coverage in their own campaign area's local media. But we don't keep articles about non-winning candidates who can't be demonstrated as more notable than the norm, because our notability criteria for politicians are designed to restrict us to holders of notable offices, and to keep non-winning candidates for office out, except in extraordinary circumstances much closer to Christine O'Donnell than to "ninth place finisher in a mayoral election". Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The issue is not (or should not be) sourcing, but notability. The normal rule is that failed political candidates are NN. However this has a lot of articles; as long as these exist, we need a category for them. In view of the size of New York, I guess that only people who are already notable (or remain notable) stand for election. I hope further comments will address WP:N. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because NYC is in the rare class of global cities where we accept the city councillors as notable, and mayoral candidates in most cities tend to have already served as city councillors or borough presidents, that does also mean that NYC is also going to have a higher than normal proportion of mayoral candidates who had already cleared the notability bar for other reasons. But it doesn't mean that we need to categorize them as mayoral candidates — we should be categorizing them on the criteria that are the basis for notability, such as Category:New York City Council members, and using the election article to "navigate" the mayoral candidacies. It also warrants mention that several of the people categorized here weren't on the general election ballot at all, but were merely non-winners of the nominations in the Democratic or Republican primaries — and that's even less of a basis for notability or definingness than running in but losing the general election is. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20th-century reformed church buildings

The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge Category:20th-century reformed church buildings to Category:20th-century Protestant churches. A small category with church buildings from several countries, and (more importantly) not part of a category tree for Evangelical or reformed (Reformed?) church buildings. When it was proposed as "Speedy" an alternative proposal was to include in Category:Reformed church buildings. However note that the two Königsberg churches seem to be Lutheran (not Reformed) churches. The others, the "Berlin Cathedral, Bad Homburg", the "English Evangelical church in New York" and "St Pauls in Kentucky" are all described as "Evangelical". Hugo999 (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. First of all it makes a lot of sense to have a Protestant category, since in a number of countries (e.g. in Germany) due to mergers of Lutheran and reformed churches it is often hardly possible to determine whether a church building belongs in the Lutheran or Reformed category. However I'm not sure why the reformed category needs to be abolished, as it may still contain church buildings that are clearly of reformed origin. Rather prefer to set up a tree for Reformed churches by century, just like for other denominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- At least two of the items relate to Lutheran, not Reformed, churches in the denominational sense. It may be better for the category to be emptied manually into appropriate denominational categories and then this one deleted, but that would be more than we can expect the closing admin to do. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; to divvy up buildings by various protestant denominations is premature. If kept, capitalization needs changing and maybe even wording as well: are church buildings reformed, or do they house Reformed congregations? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The use of the term "reformed" is problematic and partisan, because it opens up old theological debates about the extent to which some protestant denominations (especially Anglicanism) are "reformed". That debate is fascinating to those with theological interests, but inytroduing it here does nothing to assist navigation ... and navigation is the prime purpose of en.wp categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info: the current praxis in categorization is that Anglicanism in general isn't part of reformed tree but some specific articles/subcategories within Anglicanism are in the reformed tree (e.g. Puritanism in the 17th century). By the way, usually category names include "Calvinist and reformed" rather than just "reformed". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]