Category:American soccer players of Nigerian 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:Merge to Category:African American soccer players. --PhilosopherLet us reason together. 21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:American soccer players of Nigerian Descent to Category:African American soccer players
Nominator's rationale: overcategorization. no precendent for people by nationality, by sport, by particular ethnicity/national origin
Merge per nom as a triple-intersection, though I'm inclined to say that the target category should also be deleted (yes, I realise it's not nominated and would require another CfD). Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per both. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:American soccer players or to Category:African American soccer players, depending on the outcome of an outstanding DRV. The by-ethnicity target category has been speedily deleted as re-created material, but it's possible it may be re-created at a DRV, which is the proper forum to work all of this out. It's overcategorization as it stands now and the articles belong in either parent category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:45, 2 December 2008 (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:English tax resisters
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge - one way or the other, whichever is preferred. Both are not needed and the sole occupant of the British category was born in Suffolk. Otto4711 (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer the British category was broader. Even that is likely to be a very small category, as I doubt that even going to prison for refusal to pay tax would make a person notable, as opposed to famous for 15 minutes (well- 3 days). The present person in it was evidently promoting tax resistence as an element of the suffragette movement. I am thus not convinced that the category is worth having at all: Possibly delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(On reconsideration) -- Upmerge to Category:Tax resisters, also all its national subcategories. There are not enough articles in the category to require ther to be separate national categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2008 (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:Religious figures from Pittsburgh
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. Feel free to renominate for the rename discussed at the end. This was a late development and may merit additional discussion on the merits. It did not have any discussion here so a rename is not an option. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Religious figures from Pittsburgh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overly narrow in scope. Appears to be the only "religious people by town" category and it cuts too fine. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/upmerge as needed. Postdlf (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 43 articles for 43 different religious figures from Pittsburgh, making it a category that is anything but narrow. Alansohn (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that the category was small. I said that it was overly narrow. Otto4711 (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that atheist activist Madalyn Murray O'Hair is included (who, furthermore, was born in PGH but apparently did nothing there for which she achieved notability), a lot of that size may be mere bloat. "Religious figure" is a vague term. But more importantly, it is apparently elsewhere unused in the category system. At a minimum, it should be renamed to "religious leaders." Postdlf (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. Toddst1 (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We also have Category:Religious leaders from Cincinnati, which probably comes to the same thing. I suspect this is the result of having a WP editor who is a church historian from Pittsburgh. Perhaps we need some for other cities. On the other hand the parent Category:Religious leaders looks a muddle at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the laundry list, you have offered no policy reason for deletion of these categories. If the intention of the category system is to provide an aid to navigation for those reading Wikipedia articles to allow them to find similar articles, these categories productively organize and interrelate substantial numbers of articles into several branches of the category system. The articles for Cincinnati are productively organized within Category:People from Cincinnati, Ohio and Category:Religion in Cincinnati, while those for Pittsburgh's religious fall into Category:People from Pittsburgh and Category:Religion in Pittsburgh. Furthermore, religious figures tend to interact with each other within a community in a defining and quite visible public manner through interfaith dialog and social service programs, that quarterbacks, male models, scientists and criminals do not; That they are religious figures within Cincinnati or Pittsburgh is a strong defining characteristic. These out-of-date "precedents" you have offered only provide further evidence for retention of these categories. To the best of my knowledge, there are no parent categories for Category:Physicians by city, Category:Scientists by city, Category:Criminals by city, Category:Socialites by city or Category:Male models by city. These categories provide a link within the overall structure of Category:Religion by city that includes more than 50 cities worldwide, and would benefit Wikipedia tremendously by its retention here and expansion elsewhere. As much as I admire the near religious fundamentalist zeal with which categories are deleted under the chapter and verse of the Apocrypha of OCAT, I fail to see how lumping these articles into generic categories -- despite their strong and obvious defining common characteristic within a clearly-defined category structure -- serves the goal of improving navigation using the category system. Alansohn (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason there are no parent categories for criminals by city and scientists by city is because they along with several other similar categories were deleted at CFD. Did you not read through all of the links I provided or did you decide to overlook that one for some reason. You have presented no evidence that the precedents cited are "outdated" or that the consensus against this level of categorization has changed. And are you seriously suggesting that doctors and socialites don't "tend to interact with each other" within a community? And, as has been noted upthread, at least one of the people categorized as a religious figure from Pittsburgh did not interact with anyone in Pittsburgh in any sort of interfaith capacity so that portion of your argument is falsified. Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read through all of the other cases you offered and have shown why they offer no value here. The other parent categories have been deleted because of a lack of structure and breadth. If you take a look at various occupations by city, you will notice that the ONLY city included for these categories was Cincinnati. The Category:Religion by city includes category structures for more than 50 cities worldwide. I do appreciate your providing examples of other groups gathering by profession, which are excellent arguments for overturning the previous deletions. Please point me to similar organized gatherings of quarterbacks, male models and criminals. At no time have I suggested that all of the individuals listed in these articles gather together in the same room on a regular basis. The argument I made, which you have bizarrely misinterpreted, is that "religious figures tend to interact with each other within a community in a defining and quite visible public manner through interfaith dialog and social service programs". I would be curious as to the system of logic you use by which Ms. Ohair's case has "falsified" this statement. I have shown that there is a unifying strong defining characteristic, that these categories fit into a well-defined category structure and that these categories do not fit the "precedents" you have tossed out, all of which argue well for retention. I would suggest doing a more comprehensive job upfront of justifying deletion, rather than being forced to dig up more material down the line. Heck, even the claim that "Appears to be the only 'religious people by town' category" is contradicted by your own nomination, let alone the 50 other such categories. Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well first, at no time did I say anything that any reasonable person could possibly interpret as requiring that anyone in these categories "gather together in the same room on a regular basis" so I have no idea how you managed to conjure that little gem up. I understand your claim perfectly, and noted that a counter-example has already been offered in the bounds of this discussion. That someone else found a single additional similar category in no way invalidates the point that "religious people by city" is not in wide-spread usage in Wikipedia. Your much-ballyhooed "50 other such categories" are under religion by city, not religious people by city, and categorize such things as church buildings and denominations, not religious individuals. Did you once again fail to understand what a category structure entails or is this a deliberate distortion?
By the way, can you explain why we should have these two isolated, vague and ill-defined categories when we already have an extensive and specific scheme in place for categorizing clergy and other religious personnel? Otto4711 (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am still baffled as to what it is you believe Madalyn Murray O'Hair's presence in Pittsburgh conclusively invalidates or what it is that you have found a conclusive counter-example for. You're repeated claims that any other editor can only disagree with you because they are "not understanding" is simple incivility and plain arrogance. I have shown that this category is well-defined, fits well within the existing category structure, and provides an effective aid to navigation, which is the intended purpose of the category system. There is a very well-defined structure at Category:Religious leaders with hundreds of categories included in its structure. To put this in your own words, when you said that this "Appears to be the only 'religious people by town' category" and then added a second, was this because "you once again fail to understand what a category structure entails or is this a deliberate distortion?" Again, your attempts at monotonous repetition have not convinced me. It's time to harass someone else. Alansohn (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So...which part specifically of the word "appears" is giving you trouble? And in point of fact, the originally nominated category is the only category that starts with "Religious figures from". As for your phony claims of "harassment", I can only assume they spring from paranoia, narcissism or a subtle blend of both. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've run out of nonsense, but I'm still curious as to what part of my argument Mrs. O'Hair disproves ("at least one of the people categorized as a religious figure from Pittsburgh did not interact with anyone in Pittsburgh in any sort of interfaith capacity so that portion of your argument is falsified"). Any updates on citywide meetings of male models and criminals would also be appreciated. Other than that, I stand by Keep and the argument that supports it. Alansohn (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added the Cincinnati category because these should clearly have the same result but I don't know how to change the category tag so that it leads here and not to tomorrow's listing. If someone can please update the tag? Otto4711 (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I tweaked it. Cgingold (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per OCAT, to People from Cincinnati / People from Pittsburgh and Religious leaders. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep per OCAT, there are many other by-city categories and these seem to fit in fine. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while I still believe this is overcategorization, if consensus is to keep then per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_23#Category:Religious_people I would suggest changing the names of these accordingly to "People associated with religion from Pittsburgh" and "People associated with religion from Cincinnati". Otto4711 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2008 (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:Thor Ablestar
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Subject area is not large enough to warrant a category. GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Category:Thor Able. Might a merge of the 2 articles in Category:Thor Ablestar into this be viable? Occuli (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge -- we do not need a category to contain a class of space rocket and a list of the occasions on which they were launched, which is all we have. I am not sure that Category:Thor Able has much more merit, but there are a few articles in it. In each case the list of launches could conveniently be merged into the article as neither is unduly long. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the two categories would be a bad idea as Thor-Able and Thor-Ablestar are not the same thing. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:26, 7 December 2008 (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:Queens College faculty
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The two categories cover the same subject, but the latter category contains the correct full name of the college. Eastlaw (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom assuming that there is no one from any other Queens College. If there is please manually recategorise first. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2008 (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:Wind energy
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. Clearly this is the consensus. While the reverse merge may in the end be the better name, that can wait for the more complete discussion suggested in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Poorly populated category without clear differentiation which articles belong to which category. This category also is not needed for better differentiation between different parent categories as it has only one parent category and it could be easily cut-out. Beagel (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There's no need for two essentially redundant categories. Category:Wind power is older and better populated, and nearly all of the related categories use "power", not "energy". Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Cgingold.--Lenticel(talk) 00:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Cgingold as essentially duplicates. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearly laying out this other component of the problem. It looks like we may need to overhaul both of these category structures in a more comprehensive way. Cgingold (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2008 (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:Players of American football by agent
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Players of American football by agent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Athletes represented by Chafie Fields
Category:Athletes represented by PSP
Category:Athletes represented by Drew Rosenhaus
Nominator's rationale: Delete Categorization by agent is non-defining and spammy. brewcrewer(yada, yada) 00:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Occuli (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. By all means, Delete all per nom. This is one road we certainly should not go down. Whatever the creator's intent, this comes across as commercial promotion. I sure hope we don't have any other categories like these -- i.e. actors by agent or writers by literary agent. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DElete all -- This is almost as bad as categorisomg performers by performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
Delete as per nom; it is non-defining and spammy! The Wikipedia is not supposed to keep track of big money power games in the US and in UEFA. The agents have no influence outside of the world of sports, at least not at this time. Keep it on the field! --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. If the agent is notable, they will have an article, and the players they represent can be listed. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination, but also because it's too difficult to maintain. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2008 (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.