< September 22 September 24 >

September 23

Category:Non-Muslim Islamic scholars

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. During this discussion, by religion subcategories have been created, so users may wish to revisit this category and/or its subcategories in a new nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOTDEFINING and the reasons perfectly illustrated by this Fox News report. In fact, I'm a little surprised at the title of Islamic studies by author (non-Muslim or academic). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an article with a very different name has a horrible name and conflates two different things, does not mean that this article is unworkable. Here we merely classify by if the author is Muslim or not. That is easy to define, and it is clearly connected to their study. Whether a work is "academic" or not is not easy to define. Some of the definition will be fueled by the goals and views of those defining it. Also, what constituted academic work 100 years ago is not the same as today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except the category has articles like Arthur John Arberry where all we are ever told about the subjects religion is that they are "non-Muslim".John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you jumped the gun a bit, but thats life. I would suggest we don't need the container - christian islamic studies scholars can sit right along side muslim islamic studies scholars, and people who we don't know just remain in the parent. ahhh - but then we run into a WP:EGRS problem - since we shouldn't ghettoize by religion, which means now everyone would have to be bubbled up to the parent, because this one should be non-diffusing. argh. We risk another Filipacchi moment - e.g. "Are you saying Christian scholars aren't good enough to go in the fancy parent category??" Do only atheists or jedis get to be there? etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is more complex than that though. Daniel C. Peterson does not work from within the Muslim tradition, but he accepts it more than other scholars. On the other hand, some Muslim scholars will write differently for different audiences.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Christian Bible scholars (from many denominations) used to be united by their dismissal of the nasty academic critics, with their resolutely secular views. After more than a century of argument, there's much more of a gradient from academic neutrality to apologetics within Christianity itself. Probably Judaism as well, though I know little about that field. Muslim scholars are taking the first steps in such an accommodation. STILL, I think WP users would benefit from a hint that Al-Ghazali is not going to offer the same sort of analysis as, say, Patricia Crone. How would you suggest we sort scholars into traditions? Zora (talk) 07:05, 9 October 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:Cleveland Way

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) 21:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should be deleted and others kept. So I'm sorting through that list to see which ones merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? There was specific support in the old discussion to delete this trail category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not nominate Category:Railway stations on the Cleveland Way since I'm not sure what should be done with this one. Is that category a good way to categorize those rail stations? If it is, then keeping may be proper. If not, this should also be nominated for deletion or maybe upmerging. This sub category contains most of the content for the category nominated for deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:22, 23 September 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:Films directed by David Duchovny

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: OVERCAT/SMALLCAT. Duchovny has only directed one film, so it doesn't need its own category. MSJapan (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this cat tree mirrors the album by artist tree for the music project. Same rationale. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:48, 24 September 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:Azania

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) 21:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Both categories state that the main article for the category is Jubaland, and that article states that Azania is an alternative name for Jubaland. -- Zyxw (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you must mean Azania. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 28 September 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.

Chinese unmanned aerial vehicles

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, except for the one that was withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. This is far too fine a diffusion for this sort of category; no other nation is subcategorised this way, and we do not subcategorise aircraft by production status or helicopters by intersection of pilot status+number of rotors (the last two). Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles of China is, even after the proposed mergers, not overlarge to the point where subcategorisation is necessary; if there is to be subcategorisation of UAV-by-country categories this needs to be discussed at the project level. (Note that the subcategories for helicopters, blimps, and target drones are not WP:OC and are thus not included in this discussion). - The Bushranger One ping only 10:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the List of unmanned aerial vehicles of the People's Republic of China most dont have stand-alone articles, and looking at the number and variety I dont think they are notable enough for stand-alone article so multiple-categorisation may not be needed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further response: My basic sense is that there is a need for at least some of these subcategories. For one, I think it is helpful to separate out explicitly military UAVs from others. For another, unmanned MAVs (model airplane size) seem markedly different than full-sized UAVs. But I am certainly open to suggestions. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial merge: I have no problem merging UCAVs into 'military' UAVs; and merging both quadcopters and multirotor UAVs into 'helicopters'. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:54, 23 September 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:Lorde

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) 23:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:12, 23 September 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:Blue Ribbon schools in the United States

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) 21:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in the United States
List of "in state" subcategories to be deleted
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Alabama
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Alaska
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Arizona
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Arkansas
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in California
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Colorado
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Connecticut
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Delaware
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Florida
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Georgia (U.S. state)
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Hawaii
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Illinois
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Indiana
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Iowa
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Kansas
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Kentucky
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Louisiana
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Maine
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Maryland
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Massachusetts
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Michigan
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Minnesota
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Mississippi
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Missouri
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Nebraska
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Nevada
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in New Jersey
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in New York
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in North Carolina
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in North Dakota
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Ohio
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Oklahoma
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Pennsylvania
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Puerto Rico
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Rhode Island
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in South Carolina
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Tennessee
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Texas
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Virginia
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Washington (state)
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in West Virginia
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Wisconsin
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Wyoming
  • Propose deleting Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Houston, Texas
Nominators rationale: That a school has won this award (possibly decades ago) is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of the school. Most of the articles in the category don't mention the award in their lead and many do not mention it at all (examples). There are better ways to categorize schools (e.g. by type and by location). Note: There is no need for these categories to be listified as (if it's necessary for WP to contain such a list) it should be created from the list on the official website (which is linked from the main article) rather than from the current category contents (which only contain a small fraction of the 5000+ schools that have received the award). For info: An example of a previous CFD that removed schools from an awards category is this. DexDor (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to one of your points - A school might trumpet having received this award on banners etc (though would they really do that decades after winning the award?). I sometimes pass through villages that display a sign saying something like "Fooshire In Bloom - Small Villages Category 1987 - Runner Up"([1]) and I don't think that's a defining characteristic of the village. I.e. that an organization chooses to trumpet something about itself doesn't necessarily mean it is a good characteristic for categorization in an encyclopedia. DexDor (talk) 20:57, 23 September 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:Wikipedia essays giving advice

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: relisted at CFD 2013 October 2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Wikipedia essays giving advice to Category:Wikipedia guidance essays
Nominator's rationale: I don't see any/much difference in meaning between "essays giving advice" and "guidance essays" (if there is a significant difference perhaps someone could explain it on the category pages and link them to each other then I'd happily withdraw this CFD). The reason I've suggested merging in this direction is that there's a template that adds the "guidance" category to pages (both categories were created in early 2010 and contain 100+ essays). DexDor (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays have been notified. DexDor (talk) 05:54, 23 September 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:Trans Pennine Trail

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) 21:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Trans Pennine Trail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Villages on the Trans Pennine Trail
Nominator's rationale:These categories contain just an article about a place (which shouldn't be categorized by a walking trail) and the eponymous article (which is already in the appropriate parent category). Note: previous group CFD had a no consensus result. DexDor (talk) 04:35, 23 September 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