< October 31 November 2 >

November 1

Category:Paul Auster

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) 04:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too small - per Wikipedia:OC#EPONYMOUS this should be deleted, as it only contains one category and one subcategory. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:08, 1 November 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:Zones

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) 04:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Appears to be a collection of entities with the word "Zone" in them, and also Conarky. I don't think that a Nuclear Free Zone, Zones of Nepal, or the Korean DMZ have much in common with one another. SnowFire (talk) 21:44, 1 November 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:American straight-to-series scripted television series

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) 04:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:American straight-to-series scripted television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorizing TV series on this basis feels like overcategorization. There are many paths by which a series can make it to air and building a category around each of them strikes me as a structure we don't want to build. This is also a triple-intersection category, of "American", "straight-to-series" and "scripted" which as I understand we generally try to avoid. We have no Category:Scripted television series at all and no article on the Straight-to-series concept. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:09, 1 November 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:New Brunswick Sports Hall of Fame inductees

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) 04:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify per WP:OC#AWARD. It is my understanding that state and provincial sports halls of fame are generally not considered sufficiently significant for inductee categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 1 November 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:Virtual machines

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 by nom. Changes have made this discussion irrelevant. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Hypervisors create and run virtual machines. Virtual machine are logical entities, not software products; hypervisors are. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. Are you saying we should keep one stupid mistake because of another stupid mistake? Why not fix both!? I'd hop there and change the main article from virtual machine to hypervisor but I am afraid an editor hasn't studied the content of the category (like yourself) might revert me indisciminately. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Please sign your message. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lisa, I don't see why you call this a stupid mistake. I've looked at a number of articles in this category, and most of them start with "X is a virtual machine on platform Y" - etc. There may be a scope for a separate hypervisor category, but I'm not convinced yet. Can you give me a list of members that would be hypervisors but definitely not virtual machines?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Humpf! I just finished moving them out. Man, the category is much leaner now. You can keep the rest. But you see, the idea was to keep the hypervisors and move the virtual machines out. But... you guys made me take longer route. Anyway, if you insist on seeing a stupid mistake, ... well, I am not going to point you to one because I don't like commenting on the contributor unless necessary. But you should've eaten the trout that I sent you. Makes you smarter! (yes, that was a joke.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think some items belong in Category:Virtualization software or elsewhere instead feel free to move them - but some bad eggs in a category is no reason to delete. There are a number of items in this category which are described in the lede as a 'virtual machine' (see [1] - one potential problem with this category is that virtual machine has many different meanings, but I'm not sure if that is fatal. Otherwise, please assume good faith, calling it graffiti is exaggerated.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. With Seyasirt's comment below, what we have is 90% bad egg. And some items there are just interpreters, not process virtual machines. Now, while I am ready to hear your discussion on that, please avoid WP:OR. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. There is a small problem with your reason: We already have a Category:Java virtual machine. If we move what you suggested there, and remove what Obiwankenobi mentioned above, we will have nothing left. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:44, 8 November 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:First Nations women

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to parent - see related Category:Native American women, which doesn't further subdivide. In canada, there are three divisions under aboriginal, of which first nations is one grouping. I don't think a separate category just for first nations women is needed, if we want to gender all aboriginal people in Canada the top level cat should suffice. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the first nations are recognized as culturally distinct, as I noted above; First Nations is a container no matter what. I just don't think we need it - aboriginal canadian is sufficient as a container for any women-cats that are found below.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to the category intersection to the top of Category:First Nations people so you can see how it works. This could be made slightly tighter by populating an "aboriginal" category. BTW, I never claimed all aboriginal people are first nations - one is the superset of the other. As I pointed out, we have a similar case in the US where we grouped all of the native american women together rathern than breaking it down tribe-by-tribe.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That link doesn't work. There are obvious hits that aren't First Nations women. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones specifically?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, without even looking at pages, there's Kim Campbell, the former Prime Minister, and Sky Lee, a Chinese-Canadian writer. I'm sorry, but I don't think this approach works with false positives on BLPs. I wish robots worked better, myself. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a false positive; it's just a poorly set-up sub-category structure. Category:Nuu-chah-nulth contains Category:Alberni_Valley which contains Category:People_from_Port_Alberni. We could fix this by adjusting the parenting, or just populate "Aboriginal Canadian women" and intersect with that. Category intersection will reveal poor parenting practices, but that doesn't mean it's broken.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can populate "First Nations women" and intersect with that, too. As it stands, and as it's written, it's broken and will mislead people looking at it today. Please remove it; right now we are claiming that Kim Campbell is a First Nations woman to anyone looking at your list. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obi-Wan Kenobi, could you can actually remove it instead of marking it as "may not be 100% correct". We know it's not correct right now, it's not a vague possibility. There are BLPs in your list that deserve more than "maybe" and we shouldn't "experiment" with actual biographies. You can sandbox or something, can't you? __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the sub-cat issue, so Kim and Sky are now gone. Please take a look and see if there are others. Again, the advantage of this approach is that as soon as someone is added to "Canadian women writers" and "Cree people" for example, they will show up on this dynamic list.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is already the case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge difference between First Nations people -> Aboriginal Canadian people and First Nations women -> Aboriginal Canadian women. One is a top-level container category that is gender neutral and diffusing; the other is a non-diffusing gendered category. If you want to keep First Nations women, to be fair you'd have to create First Nations men, and Metis women, and Metis men, and Inuit women, and Inuit men, and if you're classifying Inuit women, then why not Sioux or Cree or Nez Pierce women? I don't see a difference frankly. Both First Nations and Aboriginal are containers, in the same way Native American is a container; if we had a bigger container for Native American/Alaskan/Hawaiian people, I'd propose merging the Native American women cat up there as well. And as I've pointed out, there are many categories that exist only at the "Aboriginal Canadian" level - such as Category:Violence against Aboriginal women in Canada, so there's precedent that one need not always split everything into First Nations/Metis/Inuit.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree with you about the top level versus sub-level thing. But you clearly don't understand the difference between Native nations and "container" or general legal terms of art: "Inuit" is not a single tribal nation in the way "Sioux" is; it's a legal/container term more akin to "Alaska Native" (where there are multiple groups/nations). I agree that any gendered categories that exist should be balanced, but I don't agree that "just because we don't have one, the other should go" is a good argument, an equally good argument is, "well, then, create the others." I also have not made the argument that "everything" should be split First Nations/Metis/Inuit. That's a false dichotomy. Some things can be generalized. Truly, I have enough trouble stating what I DO believe clearly, I don't need to have things attributed to me that are not my actual feelings. At this point we are in tl;dr land, I've made my points as best I could, so I guess it's just time for others to vote. I'm probably done here. I don't like seeing women made invisible, and I don't like to see native people made invisible or treated as historical anachronism. Whatever gets us there. Montanabw(talk) 19:05, 21 November 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:Robert J. Shiller

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small cat, no need for an eponymous cat - not likely to grow. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The writing might make a case for "works of Robert J. Schiller", but not for an epon cat. Besides, that's a bit crystal-ball-ish...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was using the same crystal-ball-ish methodology you used to state with absolute certainty that the category was "not likely to grow", I just used a more accurate reading based on the characteristics of the actual person to make my determination. What did you use to make your crystal ball prediction? Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing Shiller is most known for are his books (which already go in the works category), the Case Shiller index (article already exists), and the research that won him the nobel prize. I see epon cats as really useful when there are upwards of ten articles related to the subject- see Category:J._R._R._Tolkien for a textbook example of a useful epon cat. Even if 2 or 3 more articles were written about Shiller's contributions, I still don't think that would suffice for an epon cat, and much of his work is embedded in larger economics articles that themselves would not make sense to be categorized as "robert J. shiller".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fair approach; it is, in the broader sense, a "work" by this economist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:49, 4 November 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:Computer scientists from Melbourne

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection; we don't have a broader "CS people by city" so this category is an anomaly, and we don't have so many australian computer scientists that we need to further divide by city. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:55, 1 November 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:Computer scientists by IFIP Working Group

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) 04:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As well as:
  • Category:Members of IFIP Technical Committee 1‎
  • Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.3‎‎
  • Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.6‎‎
  • Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.7‎‎
  • Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.8‎‎
  • Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.1‎‎
  • Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.2‎‎
  • Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.3‎‎
  • Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.8‎‎
  • Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.11‎‎
Nominator's rationale: Membership in a working group is not defining; these memberships change over time as well, so it isn't like an award - it is transient. As such, all of these categories should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm working under the assumption that probably no groups a computer scientist is a member of that would be worthy of a category. Alumni, yes, job, potentially, but working group membership - not in this case. Category:Committees and Category:Working groups has some other examples, but the vast majority don't have categories for members, most categories are just for articles about the committees. There are a few rare exceptions, like Category:Norwegian Nobel Committee or Category:International Panel on Climate Change lead authors, but these are very high level postings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:35, 5 November 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.

Healthcare to Health care

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. – Fayenatic London 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All nominated categories
Rationale The main article and main category of the three are Health care and Category:Health care respectively. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
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:Bedroom musicians

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) 04:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only real definition as to what a "bedroom musician" supposedly is is backed up by a broken link on the category page. The main article, Bedroom musician, was speedily deleted four years ago, and a Gsearch came up with nothing. (Why the articles in this category were even placed in this category is anyone's guess.) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:39, 1 November 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.

Compound modifiers

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: no consensus. There was a consensus that these categories needed a variety of solutions rather than the single solution proposed here. Feel free to renominate in smaller groups. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy nomination. These are all compound modifiers, and therefore they should be hypenated per MOS:HYPHEN. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
  1. All but American dual-ethnicities were converted to the format Booian of Fooian descent some years ago. There is a lot to be said for applying this in US too. Possibly, this should be limited to those who immigrated within the last couple of generations, and may retain cultural connections with theri origin, rather than being absorbed by the "melting pot".
  2. Unless the theologians have a distinctive approach to their theology due to be of Asian extraction, I would suggest they should be Category:American theologians of Asian descent. This may apply to several more.
  3. Only one hyphen: if two would otherwise be required the first two should be hyphenated and not American.
  4. Scotch-Irish is a single ethnicity, largely Scottish Presbyterians who emigrated to Ulster and then to southern USA. "Scotch-Irish Americans" should be an acceptable description. Note that there is no surviving antecedent ethnicity, as there is no such distinction among the Protestant inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
  5. If we have to change them at all, it should be North-African American or Middle-Eastern American, but unless we are dealing with Berbers or Middle-Eastern Christians, I would suggest a merger to Arab-American.
  6. "European American culture" requires a separate discussion. Is this a valid term? I suspect that the categories need merging back to parents: being the dominant culture, it should merely be American culture or just "culture".
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:Killer Klowns from Outer Space

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) 04:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. small category with zero chance of expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 09:00, 1 November 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:Slim Burna

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) 04:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. With only 2 subcategories and 3 articles, there's nothing in this category that isn't just as easily navigated from the main article. WP:OC#Eponymous. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:35, 1 November 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:Memorial highways

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) 04:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Memorial highways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Memorial highways in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Most of the pages in this category are redirects to articles about roads or disambiguation/set pages. This is an example of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. The primary purpose of a road is transport, not to be a memorial. For one article in this category being memorials is a WP:DEFINING characteristic - that should be upmerged to here and here. For info: Related previous CFDs are this and this. DexDor (talk) 06:33, 1 November 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:Educational institutions in the United States by accreditation association

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: no consensus. This closure is without prejudice to making further proposals. The category structure at the time of the nomination did not include another longstanding category, Category:Schools in the United States by accreditation association, which has now been added, and should be considered as well in a future nomination. I did not find Orlady's middle option persuasive, as it would not have dealt with schools; and as for the universities/colleges associations, Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by association might have been a more appropriate merger target than Category:Universities and colleges by association, as these bodies are nationally-focussed. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-categories to be deleted
Nominator's rationale: Which association has accredited a school/college/university is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of the institution. DexDor (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) The unaccredited category looks equally (if not more) non-permanent and there are already list articles (example), (2) Information that's important to researchers should be in lists (which can have references, dates and can discuss any nuances such as accreditation only covering certain courses) and not necessarily in categories, (3) The "by association" category is now also at CFD, (4) I don't see any relevance of athletics categories to this discussion. DexDor (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user who is planning to go to college will want to know that the institution to which they apply is accredited, and may wish to identify all of the institutions that are accredited by the same accreditation association, because they may want to be sure that credits will be considered legitimate and will transfer when they change schools. I agree that a list can do this, but if one of you wants to make a list as an alternative to these categories, I encourage you to do this before the categories are deleted, so the lists will not need to be started from scratch. Also, in response to the earlier point, I brought up the athletic categories because, like the accreditation categories, colleges are members of these categories, and they change from time to time, in fact, probably more often then accreditation status changes. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely, someone who wants to check that a particular institution is accredited should not be relying on WP categorization; the website of the accreditor would be a much better place for them to refer to. Also, WP categorization should be by permanent characteristics (i.e. whether a college has ever been accredited) not by current (accredited/unaccredited) status. What athletics categories are colleges members of ? (e.g. we don't have a category for colleges that have a woodsman team). DexDor (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For both accreditation and athletics, lists (with dates and references) would be more suitable than categories. Also, in general, "Members of <organization>" should be a list (rather than a category) because it allows things that don't (yet) have a WP article (or for whom membership of the organization is not an important characteristic) to be in the list (although in this particular case that may not be an issue). Note: it might be better to create any lists directly from RSs rather than from the current category contents.
You were notified specifically because you created the head category. Note: talk page notification is not required at CFD and is not the only way people find out about a discussion (e.g. editors can watchlist categories they create). DexDor (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The renames I propose are as follows:
I don't see any merit in converting these categories to lists, as that would simply put Wikipedia in the position of republishing lists published by the individual accreditors. --Orlady (talk) 00:04, 11 November 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:American Middle Eastern studies

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) 04:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More descriptive and less ambiguous. My first impression was that this was a category for Middle Eastern-American studies. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:35, 1 November 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:Time in Belarus

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: no consensus.
The discussion was not helped by the nominator's failure to suggest where the relevant articles would be categorised. The usual solution in cases like this where there is a concern about overly small categories is to merge to one or more parent categories, but that was not offered here. The description of the nomination's scope as "most of the other junk in Category:Time by country" was also unhelpfully vague, as well as inappropriate in tone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: pointless, single entry cat  Volunteer Marek  00:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my !vote applies only to the Belarus category, which was separately nominated at the time I made it and should not be applied to any other category. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. And are these part of an "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"? Particularly since most of the articles in'em should properly be redirected to the relevant capital cities? And what is the point of having a cat with 1 entry? The lowest unit of a categorization scheme is an article, not a cat. Volunteer Marek  18:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMALLCAT allows for categories that would otherwise be deleted as part of a larger category structure but it doesn't require them. As I noted above, the contents of this structure are rather suspect IMHO based on the number of categories that consist of nothing but a stub article on the country's tz database entry. That there are some legitimate "Time in COUNTRY" categories doesn't mean we have to have ~300 other single-stub-entry categories for every other country on Earth. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other issue here is that most of those two sentence stub articles that exhaust each of these "Time in..." categories need to be simply combined into one single list article or made into redirects to the articles on capitals of the relevant countries. Volunteer Marek  20:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about all category members with three or fewer articles?  Volunteer Marek  18:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Categories other than those specifically tagged as part of this nomination cannot be considered as part of the nomination. A separate nomination is required, but I'd suggest holding off on making it until this one concludes. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:47, 3 November 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