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) 00:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The Society In Dedham For Apprehending Horse Thieves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The Society In Dedham For Apprehending Horse Thieves is 200-year-old society whose main purpose now seems to be an annual dinner of big names. This category is basically a grouping of members, none of whom are defined by their membership: George Armstrong Custer, Michael Dukakis, Thomas Finneran, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ted Kennedy. (OK, maybe I am being unfair: who would ever have heard of Gorbachev if he hadn't joined this club?) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:George Custer is a member of Category:Burials at West Point Cemetery. I don't think the location of his final resting spot defines him or his legacy. Should we then delete that category since it is just a collection of people who all happen to be buried in one place? --14:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Briancua (talk • contribs) + — Note to closing admin: ‎Briancua (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where someone is buried is not generally a defining characteristic (and I think we categorize far too much on peoples death), but (1) that category is not the subject of this CFD and (2) a person is (usually) buried in (only) one place - unlike membership of societies. DexDor (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete This is a non-notable membership-in-a-club sort of category. If there were a number of articles ABOUT the horse thievery society it could survive as a topic, but as it there is only one article about it, thus no category needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BHG and Obi. DexDor (talk)
• Delete This is the extreme of non-notable connections. In the article is says "Former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis is a member, though when a reporter asked him he said he had never heard of the Society.[10]" It is also unclear that John Paul II was aware of his membership. Most awards the winners actually show up to receive, this does not even reach to that level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 02:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Works edited by Maxim Jakubowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: we don't appear to have any other categories of works by editor. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writer's Defense: Maxim Jakubowski edited several international New Wave science fiction / fantasy anthologies in the 1970s / 1980s (Twenty Houses of the Zodiac is one of them). This category will increase if the other books are detailed. This will be a way to link these works together. That is the reason this category should be kept. If there is another title for this kind of category that is standard in Wikipedia, then I am alright with it being used. Also, there are several anthologies that were influential and they must be arranged by editor. Hotspur23 (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I'd encourage the category creator to consider creating a navbox template for this person if he wishes, as has been done for Template:Harlan Ellison, and which as you can see includes his vastly more influential edited anthology, Dangerous Visions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Hurricane Smith singles to Category:Hurricane Smith songs

Nominator's rationale: per convention of Category:Songs by artist. Note that the category needs parents. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Plays directed by Danny Boyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: there appears to be no Category:Plays by director, which is unsurprising in view of the category clutter it would cause. How many squazillion categories would a Shakespeare play end up in? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it can be made a subcategory of Category:Films directed by Danny Boyle. If that doesn't work then they could be added to his Template:Danny Boyle. MarnetteD | Talk 20:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Plays differ from films, in that a given play can be directed by many people over time, as such *who* directs it is not defining of the play itself. OTOH, a single film has a single director, and so the category Category:Works_by_creator is workable in general, but not specifically for "X directed play Y" - a similar example would by "Symphonies conducted by X" - we don't categorize Beethoven's 9th by all of the conductors who have directed its performance.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While it may be worth listing notable plays a person has directed in the article on that person, who has directed it is not defining to the play. If we had articles on specific productions of the plays (which arguably are articles on films are) it would be a different story, but we do not have articles like that. Likewise, if Zack Snyder and 12 other people had made films based on Goyer's Man of Steel script, and we only had one article for all 13 films, we would probably not categorize films by director. However, it is extremely rare for multiple directors to use the same screen play. Even remakes of previous films usually feature a new screenplay.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Alternative Art Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. No clear criteria for inclusion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2014 (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.

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 2014 MAR 12 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ships in Norse sagas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains only one article and that's about a real ship (for which being mentioned in the sagas is hardly a WP:DEFINING characteristic). DexDor (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created the categories Category:Ships in Norse sagas and Category:Ships in Norwegian history but argue against merging them. The former category would be for "legendary" ships, i.e. ships about legendary Vikings, or ships with non-historical legends attached to them. Some of the ships that would wind up in this category would not find comfortable home in "history".

True, only article currently populates the first category, I anticipate several which can eventually be added. For example, the ship Elliði (Ellidi, Ellide, Ellida) of Thorsteins saga Víkingssonar and Frithiof's Saga. And in Sörla tháttr, the protagonist Sorli obtains Halfdan's ship Hálfdanarnautr ("Halfdan's Loom" or "Halfdan's Gift"), which is compared to several legendary ships, the Gnoð, the Elliði and the Ormen Lange. Another This Hálfdanarnautr was obtained Odd, the hero of Örvar-Odds saga. There is also Vísundr (the "Bison"), mentioned in versions of the Olafs saga Helga.

The list could go on from my own notes, and I'm sure others can pitch in. I anticipate that articles on these ships are eventually forthcoming. I could write up stub articles, but prefer to wait to see if others are willing to draft more developed articles and be able to credit themselves as creator.--Kiyoweap (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We generally avoid categorizing real things by their connection to fiction and literature. There is even less reason to do so when we only have one entry to classify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or find a merge target. I think the Sagas are about all we have for the history of the Viking period. The question is really whether there is ever going to be scope for articles (other than stubs) on particular ships that will say much other than to tell part of the story of the saga. The one article that we have is a short (but substantive) article. Accordingly the question is how that articel is best categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2014 (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.

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 (category was still empty at time of close). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American Made Motorcycles to Category:American motorcycles

Nominator's rationale: duplicate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or just delete. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose when speaking of cars and motorcycles, there are vehicles and models only sold in certain countries and/or markets. For example, Ford makes many models that are sold only in foreign markets. American motorcycles is ambiguous, does it refer to motorcycles made in America, or sold in America? BMW manufacturers some motorcylces sold only in Europe. American Made Motorcycles is not ambiguous. StarHOG (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• — Note to closing admin: StarHOG (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . I should also point out that the category is empty. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look in Category:Categories by country you'll find Category:Air-to-surface missiles of France, Category:Chinese helicopters, Category:Cars of England, Category:Sailing ships of Germany, or Category:Goods manufactured in Scotland, and so on and so on. In virtually all, the principle is that the product, whatever it is, is designed, assembled, or manufactured in that country. So StarHOG's objection is theoretically a problem, but in practice we have hundreds of categories that consistently follow the same principle and so are not, in fact, a source of confusion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• True and in that case, merge or just delete (if still empty at time of CfD close). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge American=American made in how we use there terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2014 (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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Transportation in La Salle Parish, Louisiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: categorising roads by every parish then run through will cause massive category clutter. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. I hadn't done my homework, and had completely misunderstood the situation. I didn't realise that this category was part of a series, or that parishes in Louisiana are the equivalent of counties elsewhere; I thought that they were subdivisions of counties, as in England. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This one parish in an existing set of categories found in Category:Transportation in Louisiana by parish, which in turn is one state in the existing category set named Category:Transportation in the United States by county. If is not 'clutter' to categorize articles by that they are. Hmains (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If these were local roads, than it might be worth so categorizing, but when these roads run through multiple parishes, this is just going to create a mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2014 (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.

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, following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_13#Indian_people. – Fayenatic London 10:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from India to Category:Indian people

Nominator's rationale: duplicate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• merge. There was a consensus for keeping Category:Indian people and not switching to Category:People from India here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge "Indian" is horribly ambiguous, considering the usage for the ethnic group, the racial group, the Apartheid division, and American Indians. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per nom, and per previous consensus in 2011. Yes, Indian could be ambiguous, but if we cared we would have to update hundreds of categories. We don't care, at least, not enough. Indian X is fine, and is used all across the wiki, and I haven't yet seen any users complaining or massive instances of miscategorization of American Indians within.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge The term Indian, is ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. All the people appearing seem to be Indian nationals. Priya Narasimhan is an American professor and may properly by an American person of Indian descent, if she is a naturalised American. The Indian communities in Natal, Fiji, Trinidad, Guyana, etc are best categorised as Fooian people of Indian descent; native Americans should be categorised as such. Indian is the demonym for India; other uses are derivative. The target is the head of a well developed tree. If there are problems with it, they should be covered in a headnote or by capnotes. Note that the subject category is malformed in that someone has been trying to make a list instead of a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2014 (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.

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 nominator.
Thanks to Malke 2010 and Obi-Wan Kenobi for correcting my misunderstanding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Bat-borne viruses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I don't see any other categories of virus by carrier. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bat-borne viruses account for 77 viruses, many newly emerging, including SARS and MERS. This is unlike other vectors such as field mice and voles which tend towards singular viruses per rodent/vole species. Bat-borne viruses present a unique situation and the literature supports that. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep We have other categories like this - see Category:Zoonoses. The tree is in need of cleaning, but I don't think we need to delete this cat at least for now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Iranian tile work families to Category:Iranian families

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Are there any other Iranian families notable for tile work? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I see the creator had blanked the page then BHG 'unblanked' it. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I actually think it is more difficult than some realize to assign a descriptor to a whole family. The Romney family may be a political family, since even Marion G. Romney, probably the most notable person in the family not noted for being a politician, served as a member of the Utah State legislature, but other families have had notable members do a great many things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Iranian artist families to Category:Iranian families

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Single-article category; are many more Iranian artist families? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted above, the category creator had blanked the page, as well. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I really think these specific break-downs of family by occupation need to be used with caution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Pakistani Cinema Members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: As far as I can see there is no Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistani Cinema, nor anything with a similar name. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 16 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Backyards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: As a list of items that you might find in a backyard this may be comprehensive, but for virtually all the articles in it being used in a backyard is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. The two articles with "backyard" in their title should/could be upmerged. The other articles I've checked are all in more appropriate categories (e.g. subcats of Category:Garden features). DexDor (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being found in a backyard is not a defing characteristic of Swimming pool, just to give the most egregious example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tables of control of cities and towns during armed conflicts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. This seems like a very narrow category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This was originally a category for two or three articles that followed a specific format. However, it seems there's only one left. I think it would be great to have more articles about other conflicts using the same format as Cities and towns in the Syrian Civil War, but as long as there aren't any, I can't really complain about the category getting deleted. GeoEvan (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2014 (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.

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) 02:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Airlines within an airline to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to something less colloqial. I think that this refers to subsidiary companies of airlines, but am not sure. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per the discussion below, I am persuaded that this category just doesn't work, and should be deleted. So I have struck the proposal to rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In nominating the subsidiaries category just below, I'd noted that it wasn't subdivided by industry -- not yet, anyway. So Category:Airline subsidiaries might be one way to go, but that might then include subsidiaries that were not airlines, themselves. I'm neutral on even keeping it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Airline brands which is what these are. "Airline within an airline" appears to be nothing more then an attempt to replace the better understood term brand. Note that something like the US Airways Shuttle started as either an airline or a subsidiary, became an airline, then a subsidiary and is now a brand. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now having said that, I'm unsure given the point that I just made on the need for this. Using my example, US Airways is also a brand and a subsidiary. So if we were to create this category, it would become a category for just about every airline. I'm not convinced that would be a value add. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you may be right. All the major airlines seem to have eponymous categories. In Category:Air Canada, for example, we find all the sub- and regional brands and partners that have existed at various times -- and boy, there's a lot. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. I'm not convinced that this serves any purpose at this point. If kept it should be renamed as suggested above. But with no real reasons presented to keep, just delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• could keep, if renamed to Category:Airline subsidiary brands, but it's debatable. Otherwise, just put them all in the eponymous parent, which likey usually exists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that works even with the current contents. Ted (airline) was not, as I understand it, a subsidiary. It was really a part of United or maybe a division of United. Not really the same as a subsidiary unless we want to get to fine definitions (is a division a subsidiary?). MidAtlantic Airways was an actual airline which also happened to be a subsidiary of another airline. So how does that get categorized? Both? Unnecessary. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2014 (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.

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 (to Category:High schools in Guangxi, per Category:Guangxi/Guanxi). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Premium high schools in Guangxi, China to Category:High schools in Guangxi, China

Nominator's rationale: unless someone can find a reliable source which shows that "premium" is a particular type of high school (rather than just a value judgement), the current title is WP:PEACOCKery. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. We avoid value-judgement names for categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ghana Electricity to Category:Power companies of Ghana

Nominator's rationale: Appears to have the same scope. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 16 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

• Category:Elearning companies of Delhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Elearning companies of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. The lone article BRS MEDIA is already in Category:Companies based in Delhi and Category:E-learning. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is no reason to have two categories to hold one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2014 (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.

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 to Category:Players of British baseball (since article is at British baseball) (but manually remove regular-baseball players who were Welsh (there were some in the category) and place them in Category:Welsh baseball players). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Welsh baseball Captains to Category:Welsh baseball players

Nominator's rationale: I can find no other categories of baseball captains. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both to Category:Players of Welsh baseball. This is not a category for people who were "Welsh" by any definition, but for people who played Welsh baseball. Alternately, these categories are not supposed to contain people know for playing American baseball who were born in Wales.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. I support that rename/merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 21 February 2014 (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.

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:Disasters in Indonesia and Category:Jakarta. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Disasters in Jakarta to Category:Disasters in Malaysia and Category:Jakarta

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT (only 1 article). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• cmt Actually, this has nothing to do with Malaysia, since Jakarta is the capital city of Indonesia. Hmains (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Disasters in Indonesia and Category:Jakarta.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ryan's Hope characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#SMALL. The List of Ryan's Hope characters includes only one character with a standalone article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another example of an unneeded, small category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Live On Bowen Hosts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#PERF. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Schools in Seri Manjung to Category:Schools in Perak

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one article, parent is not big enough to need splitting. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Functionally delete since the one article is already in the proposed target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Corporate subsidiaries by company to Category:Corporate subsidiaries

Nominator's rationale: The category also includes five categories for foreign subsidiaries that are grouped by the countries they operate in. While I guess the name's not wrong, strictly speaking, I don't believe we need the "y" parameter, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm trying to think back to my reasoning nearly ten years ago (!) when I created this. By adding the "by company", I think I was trying to prevent it from being anything other than a container category rather than just dumping into it directly articles about companies that happened to be subsidiaries. Obviously we have ((container category)) now, and probably other means of maintaining it that we didn't have then. I'm surprised to find that no one has apparently ever tried to create Category:Corporate subsidiaries. postdlf (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept as is, without rename, do you think Category:Australian subsidiaries of foreign companies‎ and the other four country cats would have to be moved to Category:Corporate subsidiaries by country, under Category:Corporate subsidiaries? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something like that. They obviously don't belong under the current name. postdlf (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename there is no good reason to keep the more specific name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Alpha Delta Phi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Categories by membership of fraternities or sororities have been repeatedly deleted at CFD. See this list, which includes at least a dozen such discussions with consensus to delete, such as CFD 2007 March 16. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We have consistently avoided categorizing people by having been a member of a particular fraternity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 02:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:American art therapists to Category:Art therapists

Nominator's rationale: Until we have a Category:Art therapists, it is premature to create an intersection between that occupation and nationality. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up, BrownHairedGirl. I understand your reasoning. I have special knowledge of the field and I know there are important differences between art therapy in the U. S. and art therapy elsewhere. Unsurprisingly, American art therapists often do not have much grasp of how different their approach is. The Wiki article "art therapy" has suffered a tug-of-war between British and American points of view, on which I have been working to make it more international and less identified with one particular approach. There is lots more to do for that article!

As you may know, I set up a Category:American art therapists because I saw a bunches of links to articles on individual American art therapists in a See Also section of the article on (American) art therapy pioneer Margaret Naumburg. I questioned why the original writer even had a See Also section, and removed the articles that were already linked in the article above. The list of American art therapists seemed un-Wikipedian, like advertising by being listed on the page of the pioneer in the field, so the Category was set up to avoid that. I then removed the links to the American art therapists. The category was meant to be a meaningful compromise between those that wanted to be associated with the American art therapy pioneer, and yet hold American art therapists out as different from others, such as art therapists trained in Britain.

If this rationale seems insufficient to you as an Admin, then I will change it to Category:Art therapists and amend the affected pages plus gather other articles for the category. Anne9853 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Also, the main article's block quotes from the British and American art therapy associations don't indicate any reason why we cannot group all art therapists in one category, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge without prejudice against recreation if we get enough contents to justify splitting by nationality. At this time we lack such. Generally you probably should have somewhere over 50 articles before splitting by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is. This American category now includes 12 people while there are only 9 for the rest of the world found directly in Category:Art therapists. That is more than enough to keep in an American category, which allows it to be properly placed in its proper parent category Category:American psychotherapists. Hmains (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. With a total of only 21 articles, there is no need for any split by nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it has remained at 21 for a week, it is clearly not in the midst of a large-scale category expansion at present. Expansion may occur in the future, but for now this is an unneeded division of the category that hinders navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who read thriller to Category:Wikipedians who read thrillers
• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who read legal thriller to Category:Wikipedians who read legal thrillers

Nominator's rationale: Rename to plural, alternatively to "thriller (genre)" or "thriller fiction". Although the main articles are Thriller (genre) and Legal thriller, the current short names look to me as if they were grammatical mistakes. – Fayenatic London 09:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer: No bots. Populated by User:Scepia/thriller, User:Scepia/thriller2 and User:Scepia/legal thriller. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 16 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who read mistery to Category:Wikipedians who read mystery

Nominator's rationale: Rename as mis-spelled, per Mystery fiction. Could have been a speedy nomination WP:C2A but perhaps Category:Wikipedians who read mystery fiction would be better, although not necessary following others in Category:Wikipedians interested in literature by genre. – Fayenatic London 09:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer: "No bots". At least some, probably all members transclude User:Scepia/mystery. – Fayenatic London 09:33, 16 February 2014 (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.

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) 22:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People Under the Stairs EPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Page unnecessary; group has not produced enough EPs to really need a category page. PatrickTaormina (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OC#SMALL. It's part of the Category:EPs by artist tree, and therefore even one EP warrants a category. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Armbrust:@BrownHairedGirl:: Hey guys...sorry, let me rephrase/flesh out my original reason for nominating this category for deletion: while there IS an entry on the list, that entry (Question in the Form of an Answer Instrumentals EP) is currently just a redirect back to the artist's main page. I'm currently updating People Under the Stairs' Wiki pages, and as much as I'd love to create a page for the four EPs that they released, I don't think that any of them (unlike the group's albums) have met notability guidelines: they are all limited release, and I'm having difficulties finding reviews for them. I have a feeling that the EPs will never be candidates for their own page. I'm of the mind that we should delete the category, and when/if I come across enough to establish notability for any of them, I'll be the first in line to bring the EP category back. If, on the other hand, non-notable albums should still have a redirect and be listed in a category page, then I'm with you two: let's keep the category and I can create three more redirect pages for the other three EPs by the group and add them to the EP list. I'm fairly new to Wiki rules, so if I'm missing something, definitely let me know!PatrickTaormina (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Armbrust. Part of a series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 25 February 2014 (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.

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 articles back to Category:People Under the Stairs albums, since the article is presently at People Under the Stairs. If the article name is changed via a WP:RM, then the category could also be renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People Under the Stairs albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Page redundant; all items on this category page have already been moved over to corrected artist name page (People Under The Stairs). PatrickTaormina (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Category:People Under The Stairs albums. – Fayenatic London 09:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The article has just been moved back to lowercase "the" by user:Koavf. On 9 February, user:Anthony Appleyard moved page People Under the Stairs to People Under The Stairs as requested at WP:RM as uncontroversial (permalink). However, Koavf reverted the move because of WP:CAPS (see here). Now what? Koavf, will you agree to reinstate the move, or do we have to have a full WP:RM debate for the article before this CfD can be decided? – Fayenatic London 22:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london:: The categories should match the article and the article should conform to WP:CAPS. If there is some discussion of moving the article, then that should conclude before this does. If necessary, then procedurally close this discussion to finish a WP:RM talk on the talk page of the article. (That said, I think it's open and shut.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Koavf:, can you point to a specific paragraph that applies? WP:CAPS is now a disambiguation page. I find nothing specific but indications both ways in WP:MUSORG, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music#Names (definite article), Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names, MOS:TMRULES, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capitalization_of_"The". The latter gives rules for initial "The" but I didn't find it clear for cases in the middle of a name. – Fayenatic London 08:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fayenatic london:: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) gives guidelines for capitalizing in the middle of names of creative works. Would this not be applicable? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Koavf: No, this is a proper name, being the name of a group rather than a creative work. WP:MUSORG says Names of... musical... groups... should follow official usage (i.e. the spelling, punctuation, etc. used by the organisation’s own publications), but that line does not explicitly include capitalisation in the usage that should be followed. There are many examples of names that are stylized idiosyncratically in official media but not followed in article naming, e.g. "Outkast (stylized as OutKast)" and "Shinee ... stylized as SHINee"; however, these are examples of non-standard capitalisation within words rather than initial letters of words. Maybe a discussion on one of the MOS talk pages is needed, after which the relevant guideline can be expanded to cover this point. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Koavf:, @Fayenatic london:: Thanks for the discussion. Last week, I requested and was approved for a People Under the Stairs main page move (the->The), but while fixing redirects (which is when I requested this Cfd), my attempted "People Under (the->The) Stairs" change on the CunninLynguists page may have unintentionally riled another user, who ultimately undid that change and requested the move-back for the PUTS main page title. PUTS has officially gone by "The" since 2002, but other reliable news, web, etc. sources are split, so I'd understand MOS arguments for "the" (even if I'd rather see it uppercase). I'm certainly not going to push the issue; I'll absolutely abide by a consensus/WP:RM debate if it happens. In the meantime, I 100% agree with postdlf below that the Cfd should be postponed/closed until the issue is free and clear. Thanks again.PatrickTaormina (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose this is closed so that the article naming can be discussed and resolved first, and then the category renamed to match whatever it ends up at. postdlf (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2014 (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.

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) 02:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikimania 2005 writing contest winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: In the long term this category doesn't have much/any purpose. DexDor (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No good reason to have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2014 (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.

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 2014 MAR 12 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Marvel Comics characters who have mental powers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete Mental powers is far to vague a term, if it covers telekinesis it would cover anything kinesis. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would assume that "mental powers" would include the more specific "mental powers". If there's too many we could have sub cats (telepathy vs telekinesis or whatever) but it's better to have a general category than no organization here at all. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There already is a telepath subcat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2014 (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.

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 (upmerging contents to Category:Fictional weapons. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional weapons of mass destruction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WMDs in the real world are defined as including biological nuclear and chemical weapons; and presumably anything even crazier than a planet killing weapon. Many planet killing weapons are not specifically called WMDs Brainiac is never referred to as such. Most Super Robots can destroy cities and potentially fire nuclear missiles. Basically every super robot is more powerful than a metal gear, a Real Robot which is listed in this category. An undead or techno organic virus is considerably deadlier than small pox; which is considered a WMD. Doomsday is only listed as a WMD because the comic says so; not because of any criteria that has been established. Cell (Dragon Ball) can blow up planets unlike Doomsday (comics) yet is not a WMD. Goku and Superman can both do this as well. This is a politically loaded term the same as terrorist so using it seems inappropriate for an encylopedia. All fictional nuclear black hole or anti matter powered vehicles are by definition weapons of mass destruction yet are not listed as such. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, agree that it's pretty meaningless in the context of fiction, and it's also arguably WP:SYNTH to apply what is ultimately a political term to creative works that do not themselves use that term. postdlf (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We need to keep our Death Stars and Ultimate Nullifiers organized. The argument that the works don't use the specific words is a red herring. If reliable second party sources describe it as a weapon of mass destruction, then we can organize by it even if it doesn't have that exact name in the film, etc. The argument that people aren't included is useless as well, as we aren't categorizing people as "weapons" and people could be removed from the list. The argument that terrorism is a loaded term is not helpful as we have Category:Comic book terrorist organizations. The argument that some articles aren't listed isn't a good one, as there's nothing stopping more from being added.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Elaquate's remarks. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WMD is a term with a specific context and meaning only in that context, the context does not translate well in to the vast amount of potential uses in fiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Fictional weapons and then consider sub-categorizing by something with clearer inclusion criteria - e.g. "Fictional weapons in Star Trek" etc or "Fictional gravity-modifying weapons" etc. DexDor (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment google "Fictional weapons of mass destruction" and we get a ton of pics with weapons, objects, vehicles and fictional characters in the images section. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what? google "red haired people" and you'll find lots of pics - doesn't mean that Wikipedia should have a corresponding category. DexDor (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2014 (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.