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) 20:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Juan Carlos I of Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only four articles other than the main one--too few for an eponymous category. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Just looked and there's six articles now; perhaps somebody added another? In any event, I think that's sufficient to retain the category. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is certainly scope for expansion here. Dimadick (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My arbitrary cutoff for keeping categories is 5 articles and we hit my magic number. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2019 (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: no consensus. There was some support for deleting Category:Film directors by language and all its subcats, but there is no consensus to endorse the surprising selection by nominator @Johnpacklambert: of only one of the 23 by-language subcats of Category:Film directors by language. A group nomination of all the subcats may reach a different outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:English-language film directors

• Delete One does not have to be fully proficient in a language to direct a film in that language. Beyond this, There are some films that are intentionally and heavily bilingual, but I am not convinced we need to put directors in both languages. At a minimum we need to make it clear that British, Austalian, American, Canadian and probably a few other nationalities of film directors should be excluded from this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is there a reason you've singled out this category from all of the sub-cats of Category:Film directors by language? Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the nominator's rationale would require a group nomination of the whole tree Category:Film directors by language. The nominator's "minimum" points along the same lines as Category:English-language writers and Category:English-language singers, i.e. excluding nationalities whose majority language is English; note that in those cases it was done mainly using sub-categories by nationality, which do not yet exist here. – Fayenatic London 10:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment most potential English-language singers are excluded by fiat related to spefici countries (such as excluding Category:American singers rather than other sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with everything else in Category:Film directors by language. For someone who writes in English, or someone who sings in French, this is a defining category. However, for someone directing a film which is performed in one or another language, this is non-defining for them, but defining for the film itself. --woodensuperman 15:26, 18 February 2019 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

*Merge Category:Roman Catholic feminists to Category:Catholic feminists

• Nominator's rationale The article Catholic Church refers to the Roman Catholic Church. If I had to do a common usage analysis I could also show that the term "Catholic feminist" refers specifically to feminists who are or were members of The Roman Catholic Church. Since the Eastern Catholic Churches are part of the same broad organization their inclusion makes sense. It does not make sense to use this as a shared name category, especially since that would go against the common use of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Eastern and Orthodox Catholic churches have their own Patriarchs and do not (necessarily) recognise the authority of the Roman Catholic Pope. There are independent Catholics and other Catholics not in communion with Rome. So the category system works just fine as it is with the distinctions in place. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an inappropriate intersection per WP:EGRS, unless it can be demonstrated that Catholic feminism is a notable topic in its own right. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merging as explained by Bastun, Eastern and Roman are quite distinct. In addition, religion & feminism is a VERY significant intersection, so entirely appropriate. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What sources exist about Catholic feminism? (Which is, by the way, another topic than Catholicism and feminism). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging per Bastun's explanation. Dimadick (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Doesn't seem to be motivated to have different category trees about Category:Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Churches for this intersection, does it? PPEMES (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2019 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

---

• Merge Category:Roman Catholics to Category:Catholics, but purge things not under the hierarchy of the Catholic Church
• Nominator's rationale This ends up being categorization by shared name. This is linking Category:Roman Catholics which per our article belong to the Catholic Church, Eastern Catholics, who also institutionally affiliate with the Catholic Church, Old Catholics, who do not belong to this church and in real practice just have a shared name, and possibly some other people who belong to churches that use Catholic in their name. With Catholic Church being the accepted common name for the Church headed by the Pope, we should change the organization, so that all current Roman Catholic categories reflect our common usage decisions and just use Catholic, any needed Eastern Catholic categories are linked as sub-cats of this new Catholic category structure, and the Old Catholic articles are not linked to a general notion of Catholicism at all. With Catholic Church being the article on the Catholic Church, Catholics should be an limited to members of this church. This includes Eastern Catholics, and excludes Old Catholics, Liberal Catholics, and other dissident and non-connected movements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - it is not categorisation by shared name. Catholic Church until recently was about various churches which consider themselves 'catholic'. Of course Old Catholics, Liberal Catholics etc are catholics, whatever our article titles might be. Oculi (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt rename to Category:Members of the Catholic Church. We will need two layers anyway, for people who are and who aren't a member of the Catholic Church, but in the spirit of WP:C2C we can name the Catholic Church members category after the main article Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Eastern and Orthodox Catholic churches have their own Patriarchs and do not (necessarily) recognise the authority of the Roman Catholic Pope. There are independent Catholics and other Catholics not in communion with Rome. So the category system works just fine as it is with the distinctions in place. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per arguments of Oculi and Bastun. This proposal is completely misguided. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose More than one church follows Catholicity and they often dismiss the Popes as heretics/schismatics. Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not sure, but in accordance with stable structure as reported by for instance User:Grabado/List, "Roman Catholic" now seems to mean things pertaing to the Category:Latin Church in the category tree, doesn't it? PPEMES (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2019 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Video censorship in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I did some cleanup - there is no 'video censorship' tree - creating / populating televisionan and film censorship in China categories. This one is now empty and can be retired. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is because [[Category:Television censorship in China]] can do pretty much the same thing. Tony85poon (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The category is empty now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 9 February 2019 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:!Userboxes about political sytems, partys and political causes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Political user templates. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Note - if kept, the spelling will need serious work Category:!Userboxes about political systems, parties, and political causes. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; see WP:USERCATNO. I have added valid categories to the member pages. – Fayenatic London 14:31, 12 February 2019 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fauna of Eurasia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category (which was created by a now-blocked editor and currently contains just 2 articles) is an unnecessary category layer - if a species is present in both  Europe and Asia then it's article can be (and usually is) placed in both Category:Fauna of Europe and Category:Fauna of Asia.  Note: Both articles in this category are already in categories such as Category:Carnivorans of Asia so no merging is needed. DexDor ^(talk) 12:42, 6 February 2019 (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. (non-admin closure) Anomalous+0 (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lynching deaths in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as Category:Lynching victims in the United States covers the same ground (and more). Never mind. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2019 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Midwestern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association volleyball seasons to Category:Midwestern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association seasons
  • Category:2015 Midwestern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association volleyball season to Category:2015 Midwestern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association season
  • Category:2018 Midwestern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association volleyball season to Category:2018 Midwestern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association season

Nominator's rationale: IMHO, it's redundant to include the phrase "volleyball seasons" when the conference explicitly includes "Volleyball" in its name, and has sponsored only men's volleyball throughout its history. — Dale Arnett (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, volleyball has probably been added for consistency, in order to align with the sibling categories that don't have Volleyball as part of the proper name. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2019 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Infinite Zero compilation albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category:Infinite Zero albums was just recently deleted per CfD and this one should be deleted for the same reasons. It's a reissue label and the label of an album being re-issued is a non-defining quality of that album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:23, 6 February 2019 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: This one seems to be a bit WP:OCEPON for just a couple of list articles in addition to the main article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Main article, list of awards, and list of performances without obvious room for growth. If I'm wrong and it ever gets up to 5 or so solid articles, no objection to recreating. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2019 (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: no consensus (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Tom is notable, but hardly a category. He's no Abraham Lincoln. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do you have to say about Brett Favre or Walter Payton having their own categories? Or other noteworthy athletes like Wayne Gretzky, Babe Ruth, or Michael Jordan shouldn't have their own categories since they aren't "heads of state" (that's apples and oranges). And of course, an American president and his administration is all but guaranteed to have his own category, it isn't an "exception to the rule" so to speak. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Standard WP:OCEPON does not require Abraham Lincoln level of importance. The standard is having enough articles to aid navigation actually defined by the person and not just a loose association. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If you cull articles like List of New England Patriots starting quarterbacks or 2007 New England Patriots–New York Giants game which don't really belong (as they are not defined by Tom Brady), then there are too few articles to justify an eponymous category.

―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The later may be speculative (unlike say, the Tuck Rule Game or Deflategate), but how isn't List of New England Patriots starting quarterbacks not defined by Tom Brady, when that's for all intents and purposes, literally what he does or is? BornonJune8 (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list of QBs includes Brady, but Brady does not define that list. A category should be a container of things defined by the subject. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we went in that direction, that list article could be categorized by every person on it. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge if Kept I count 4 articles that belong here: Tom Brady, Tom Brady and Bill Belichick era, Deflategate and Tom Brady–Peyton Manning rivalry. The rest are broader NE Patriots articles not defined by one person (or his spouse). RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect: You left out the Tuck Rule Game. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reread it and agree: it is defined by Brady and that's a 5th article. Keep But Purge RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I added a few more articles to the category: Tom Brady, Tom Brady and Bill Belichick era, Tom Brady–Peyton Manning rivalry, Deflategate, Tuck Rule Game, Tom vs Time makes 6 articles. Alex Guerrero (alternative medicine) is pretty much only notable because he's Brady's trainer (Brady defines him) (7). Patriot Games (Family Guy) and Stunning and Brave are much more about Brady individually than the Patriots as a team (8); Homer and Ned's Hail Mary Pass less so (9). And he's still playing, so the category could very well expand. What's the minimum? Leviv ich 02:17, 14 February 2019 (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 Category:American Jewish conservatives to Category:American Jews and Category:American conservative people
... and WP:TROUT the nominator @Koavf for yet another nomination where the a category list says delete but the rationale says "upmerge", and no merge targets are listed. It's really v v easy to use WP:TWINKLE to create a nomination which actually says "merge Cat:X to Cat:Y" ... and wilfully failing to do so deprives CFD participants of a clear summary of the effect of the proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:American Jewish conservatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

'Nominator's rationale: /Upmerege to both parents. There is no scheme of Category:American Jews by political persuasion nor Category:American conservatives by ethnicity--this is just a one-off triple intersection. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom and per WP:EGRS. By the way, initially I thought this was about Conservative Judaism, but it is not. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. Really no need for this cross-sectional category. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge we generally do not categorize by the overlap of religion or ethnicity with political orientation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Is this not mixing up religious and political conservatism? Furthermore, I thought we had long ago eliminated political opinion categories as being too nebulous, except where Conservative and Liberal refer to party membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
• Upmerge per Marcocapelle. It's not clear whether this is supposed to be about religious or political conservatism. Marquardtika (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per WP:NARROWCAT. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom for consistency. One-off categories aren't helpful; they need to be consistent with the overall scheme to be useful. Leviv ich 17:19, 19 February 2019 (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.