< November 30 December 2 >

December 1

Category:Live Well Network affiliates

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, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Defunct diginet affiliation is not a defining category, and the network disappeared in February 2020. Raymie (t • c) 22:31, 1 December 2020 (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:TVS Television Network affiliates

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, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Network syndicated only occasional sports programming. This is a very obvious non-defining category! Raymie (t • c) 22:29, 1 December 2020 (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:The NHL Network (1975–79) affiliates

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, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. Raymie (t • c) 22:10, 1 December 2020 (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.

University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame

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) 00:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Induction into the University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame is a not a defining characteristic for its honorees. Thus Category:University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame members should be deleted. Category:University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame serves no purpose other than contain the former. Please also see a related template discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 1#Template:University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Delete Category:University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). No need for both, but having one is fine.Geolojoey (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Baptists by state

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:Baptists from the United States by state or territory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: September 2017 creation conflicts with decision of June 2006 and most recent decision of November 2016. American Baptist is any of several denominations (see disambiguation). The parent is Category:Baptists from the United States.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is also a good possibility. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Since that's the direction taken in recent CfD, I've modified the proposal. Rather a lot of others to redo, though.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2020 (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:Tamil archaeologists

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, merging content to Category:Indian archaeologists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles. Not appropriate to designate archaeologists by ethnicity Rathfelder (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2020 (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:Professional Rugby union leagues in Americas

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: manually merge. Everybody (including nominator) wants to delete the mis-named category. The question is whether there is an agreed destination. At the time of closing, there are only 2 entries remaining. Therefore manual merge. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Professional Rugby union leagues in Americas to Category:Rugby union leagues in the Americas
Nominator's rationale: I'm leaning more towards delete but this could fit under the current scheme with the likes of Category:Rugby union leagues in Africa, etc. I don't think there needs to be a "North America" and "South America" split, though. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such place as Americas. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Catholic writers

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 as suggested. There is a consensus that they should be merged by no consensus on exact name. So, defaulting to the old name. Ruslik_Zero 17:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The nominated category was recently created with only one article in it. The article could just as well belong in the target category. While the nominated category is more broadly worded than the target category, I'm guessing that the intention for both was basically the same. (There was a discussion to rename the target category here, but it was not renamed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also okay with reverse merge. There is also no reason for a fork with Eastern Catholics. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a merge consensus of some sort forming, but the question is, which way should it go?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a very fair point. In everyday language Roman Catholic is used as a synonym of Catholic. Wikipedia is probably quite unique in equating Roman Catholics with people of the Latin Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not a Catholic Church with a subset called the Roman Catholic Church practicing the Latin Rite, and Wikipedia should not try to create one. Roman is related to Rome. Latin is not a synonym. Looking at the history, it was the often contentious Mayumashu (talk · contribs) who started that Latin Rite linkage, was reverted, then others did it (and were reverted) again in 2013 and 2015. More recently, they've tried a disambiguation page, and been reverted.
    Since the Protestant Reformation, nobody in Western civilization recognizes a "universal" Catholic Church, with Bishop of Rome "primacy" over all other Christian churches. It has been even longer (1054) with the Orthodox Catholic church.
    While Roman Catholic is currently a redirect to Catholic Church, until 2006 it was a redirect to Roman Catholic Church. It had to be protected because of POV forking. Meanwhile, Roman Catholic Church was moved to Catholic Church in 2009 after mediation. Very reasonable, as they officially call themselves "Catholic", while everybody else calls them "Roman Catholic". That's a good usage of redirects.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but they're different !votes so there's no attempt to stack the deck here. I, for one, am curious what @Peterkingiron: will think of these categories in a few more days, maybe "delete both"? (-: RevelationDirect (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've also duplicate voted on relisted noms on accident.- RevelationDirect (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is creating a number of misunderstandings:
1. We have an article Roman Catholic (term) which basically says that it is a POV term.
2. This discussion is not about sects. This is just about Catholics who use different liturgies in their services, dependent on their nationality or ethnicity. Very comparable to German Lutherans and Norwegian Lutherans.
3. This discussion is not at all about the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is utterly confusing to bring that up, the Orthodox Church is completely separate.
4. As far as I am aware, no Protestant denomination has an "official" use of either term. In contrast the Catholic Church does have an official use of Catholic Church.
Marcocapelle (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you misunderstand, I'll try to do better:
  1. Roman Catholic (term) currently has 127 references, and contains statistics about usage of the term around the world. That is not a mere Point of View. This reflects actual practice, based upon cited references. Appropriate for Wikipedia.
  2. The official POV of the infallible Pope Pius XII was that "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing." That is, the POV that there is only one "Church" for all followers of Jesus of Nazareth, the Bishop of Rome is the head of that "Church", and official ecclesiastical documents often record that POV. Wikipedia does not use the article name "Church" in that manner. Nor is it appropriate to lump all sects under one uber-category. It is disrespectful.
  3. John Pack Lambert tried to use anecdotes about his personal experience as evidence, citing the metro-Detroit area. I'm from that same area, and can give anecdotes that contradict his.
  4. Many/most religious people (including members of the Orthodox Catholic Church, other Orthodox churches, and all Protestant churches) use the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish those who are members of a church affiliated with, and subordinate to, a headquarters in Rome.
  5. As to official Protestant usage of the term, I'd not intended to make this an essay with references, merely giving one published example. As another example, "Lutherans believe Scripture alone has authority to determine doctrine; the Roman Catholic Church gives this authority also to the pope...." For further explication, please look yourself for works of major publishers, such as Moody Bible Institute and Zondervan. Try Wesley's Letter to a Roman Catholic (1749), or Can A Christian Remain A Roman Catholic by John Phillips (1982). Having been raised on such as these, I'm trying to be understanding of somebody without my deep background.
  6. The target Category:American Roman Catholic religious writers was explicitly named and restricted to religious writers long ago in CfD 2011 February 4. As noted in the OP, a later attempt to rename was rejected.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing that this makes clear is that the term Roman Catholic has been used as a synonym of Catholic. The point of the discussion is that Wikipedia categories use Roman Catholic as a synonym of Latin-rite Catholics only, with the exclusion of other Catholics who just as well recognize the pope as the head of the church such as the Maronites. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly "Roman Catholic has been used as a synonym of Catholic" (or vice versa), but that's very often incorrect. Wikipedia should be following the cited references.
  1. To read my examples as saying there is a single Catholic Church, that they sometimes call the Roman Catholic Church as a synonym, would be to assert that those authors are ignorant. Martin Luther was a former priest. John Wesley was the founder of Methodism.
  2. The Maronites are another excellent example, and I'm fairly familiar with them via a college housemate. Maronites (and Copts, and so many others) are autonomous. They have their own patriarchy. They sit beside, not under, the Bishop of Rome.
  3. There are also many religious distinctions between the sects, such as full communion versus partial communion.
  4. The idea that there is a single unified "Catholic" church is egregiously POV, maintained by a church hierarchy under Rome that is still upset about events over the past 1000+ years.
  5. The idea that there is a single unified "American Catholic" religion is ahistorical and repugnant.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @William Allen Simpson: #2 makes it again very clear that this is not your domain of expertise, to put it mildly: the Maronite Church belongs to the Catholic Church, while the Coptic Church does not belong to the Catholic Church. This is a just as big mistake as earlier coming up with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Yes Maronites are autonomous as a particular church, but that is within the broader framework of the Catholic Church. Regarding #3: all particular churches within the Catholic Church maintain full communion with each other, there is no discussion about that. I have no idea what you are trying to say with #1, #4 or #5. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just going to outright guess that Marcocapelle was raised a Catholic of some sort, coming from that POV.
  1. I've spent my life around a diverse religious community, where I grew up, where I went to university, where I live now.
  2. While I'm professionally an engineer and a musician, I'd long ago taken a comparative religions course. So I've some basis of knowledge.
  3. As a musician, I've performed at worship services of Roman Catholic and many Protestant denominations. Although Shrine of the Little Flower (my childhood local parish) is a notoriously conservative parish of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit. Half the kids in my neighborhood went to parochial school.
  4. My Maronite housemate always insisted he was not a Catholic.
  5. My background is American Baptist, raised in a North American Baptist Conference church. As I've mentioned, my maternal ancestors founded First Baptist Church (Detroit, Michigan) in the 1820s. My paternal ancestors were most recently Scottish Presbyterian, before coming to America, but once upon a time were Jacobites.
  6. When they are being nice, Baptists use the term Roman Catholic. Otherwise, they call them Papists. Also, the Whore of Babylon came up in church often.
  7. For a different perspective, there's a Guardian article today about a town council recommending "Roman Catholic teaching materials", instead of the official Scotland courses.
  • This is about American "Catholic" religion writers. "Roman Catholic" is what the world calls them. "Roman Catholic" is what newspapers call them. "Roman Catholic" is what books call them. It is not a mere synonym. Wikipedia should be following the cited references.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @William Allen Simpson: your guess is wrong, I have just been reading how the Catholic Church has organized itself. The fact that it contains 24 particular churches was new to me too, initially. I hope you took the time to read something as well by now. That is better than just relying on what people tell you. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2020 (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:Pupils of Nadia Boulanger

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: recreation of category deleted at 2020 May 22#Category:Pupils of Nadia Boulanger. Oculi (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category was not deleted out-of-process, nominator provided the link to the CfD discussion. There was clear consensus to delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category was deleted via cfd, recreated out-of-process by MuzikJunky, deleted by Hyacinth and then recreated as part of a bulk recreation. See page log. Oculi (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Still, in the one proper discussion we had there was clear consensus to delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:33, 1 December 2020 (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.

Basketball players by city or town 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging into respective state-level categories, then deleting per multiple precedents and discussions on city-specific 'basketball players from X' categories. Previous relevant CfD discussions here and here relating to Portland, Oregon.

SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thats an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. And I bet if you check all of those were created after the previous CfD discussions cited by the nomination. So they could have been nominated for CfD as well if someone had stumbled across them. The nomination could probably be expanded, actually. Also, should be noted this user is the creator of the LA category we are discussing. Rikster2 (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that they should be kept because other categories exist. I am arguing that they should be kept because NY and LA represent unique basketball cultures that have been written about at length in independent sources. Certainly moreso than Category:Sportspeople from Wyoming. If there is a desire to delete city-profession categories even ones that are unique topics such as these, then I don't favor a piecemeal approach to do so. There is no rationale for deleting only the US categories and not the two dozen around the world. As I wrote above, "this should be part of a larger discussion about city-profession categories."--User:Namiba 15:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, just looking at that category, there are some major cities that may support a basketball category (like Manila), but the we already have the exact problem of “scope creep” that I fear. Take a look at the two categories in Category:Basketball players by city or town in Albania – neither of these cities produce a critical mass of basketball players (currently 9 and 10 articles in them). If we do keep these categories I think a threshold needs to be determined for when a city warrants a sport-specific and when it doesn’t (whether by coverage in reliable sources, minimum number of articles, etc). Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reasonable standard. Not every city has a unique basketball culture that is defining of those who come from it. Major metropolitan cities like New York, Los Angeles, Manila, London, Paris, Beijing etc, these categories make sense. For smaller cities like those in Albania, they probably do not.--User:Namiba 15:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think so, but is "basketball players form London" actually a city that has volume or a basketball culture? I would say no - basketball is not a major sport in the UK. On the other hand, "Footballers from London" makes perfect sense. That's why a standard is needed. Rikster2 (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a far shot saying that "basketball culture" is stronger in London or Manila than in these cities in Albania (which are not small BTW, they are the largest and second largest). I'm not precisely sure about Albania, but in neigbours Serbia and Greece they are craaaaaaazy about basketball and it means a lot more to them than it does to the average folk in London, Paris or Beijing. I guess that the only reason these cities pop up here is because they have large People from categories which some editors feel the need to diffuse into undefining subsubcategories, which is a wrong solution to a non-existing problem. It is probably better not to go down this route at all. Place Clichy (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If these categories are deleted, they should also be upmerged to the appropriate city categories. However, there is a big problem here: New York City sportspeople have been sorted by borough e.g. Category:Sportspeople from Manhattan. Short of deleting these categories and merging back into the already excessively large Category:Sportspeople from New York City, a manual merge to the individual borough will be necessary.--User:Namiba 18:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion doesn't make sense. That discussion was 11 years ago. Consensus changes. Looking at this discussion, there is no clear consensus yet. Policy-based reasons have been made for keeping the categories and those need to be addressed. I suggest you revert those tags and let this discussion play out.--User:Namiba 14:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of Category:American architects by city, Category:American film directors by city, Category:American photographers by city, Category:Rabbis from New York City, Category:Journalists by city, Category:American television anchors by city, Category:American composers by city et al? There seem to be hundreds if not thousands of these categories, most of which are much smaller and less independently notable than those proposed.--User:Namiba 03:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that User:Namiba also created Category:Players of American football from Los Angeles a couple days ago. Better to wait for this discussion to reach consensus one way or the other before rolling out any other similar categories. Cbl62 (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring that players from major metropolitan areas are often defined from that location. As I cited above, cities like New York and Los Angeles have unique sports cultures (particularly in basketball) that have been covered as unique topics in their own right. A player from New York City is in part defined by their city much more so than a player from any given state. Can you show me a book about the sports culture of Wyoming, Idaho or Oklahoma? This discussion does not ignore WP:OCAT. However, I do agree that we should place a higher standard for the creation of these categories. Perhaps a 20 article minimum to prevent every small and medium-sized city from getting subcategories?--User:Namiba 12:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
20 articles would be way too low a bar for these categories. It should probably be 100 minimum. But a better metric would be that the intersection is defining. And yes, sportspeople from the 50 states are defining characteristics. Most states have sports halls of fame (examples: 1 and 2) and articles and books are written about the top athletes from each state, such as when Sports Illustrated did this years ago. Rikster2 (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is carving out an exception for WP:SMALLCAT for these sorts of articles would go against norms generally and lead to a mess at CfD ("SMALLCAT says this" "but we require 100 per this LOCALCONSENSUS" etc.) If we ignore the sports element for a second, we have: Category:American people by occupation and city. A couple of those (chefs) should probably be deleted, but looking at that category it's clear we avoid intersections by specific profession and local geographies. I know this seems useful, but it's no different to "Jazz musicians from New York City" or "Comedians from New York City" - two categories which would probably have a lot of entries, but that we've avoided so far due to WP:OCLOCATION. SportingFlyer T·C 14:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following through on the nom's proposal would mean removing them from the city categories entirely. Is that what you support? There are many thousands of "from" categories. Do you propose we delete them all?--User:Namiba 03:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would mean removing almost everyone from the city categories, not just sportspeople. The same argument can be made for academics (where they were born, studied, or taught?), politicians, clergy... once you start removing one profession from a city category, you can start making exactly the same arguments about almost every other profession. Grutness...wha? 16:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it is defining, I do not mind a basketball player being placed in Category:People from Los Angeles (or Category:Sportspeople from Los Angeles if that's part of a strictly limited number of ) next to basketball categories. However, the intersection is OCAT in my opinion. Place Clichy (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and would you care to come up with a non-subjective way of working out whether the connection is defining? Grutness...wha? 16:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually @William Allen Simpson:, it traditionally has categorised by state for the US, and by city for almost everywhere else in the world. As such, most sportspeople have traditionally been categorised by city first. No-one has yet explained why the US should be different. Grutness...wha? 04:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never-the-less, there are currently only 2 cities and 1 territory in this category. Many/most entries do not belong in them anyway. Two adjacent examples:
  1. LeBron James is inexplicably listed as "from Los Angeles". He is not, and should not be a member of the category. He's from Akron, Ohio. He played for a team in Los Angeles, and that is already covered by Category:Los Angeles Lakers players. Note he is also in Category:Cleveland Cavaliers players.
  2. Kareem Jamar was actually born and raised in LA, covered by Category:People from Venice, Los Angeles. But he played/plays in Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Israel, and Ukraine. Contra @Grutness: in the "rest of the world", no city mentioned among them.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Miscategorisation is not, and never has been, an argument for deletion of a category. Neither has the lack of other categories of a similar type - and given that there are so many other categories the basketball players (and other sportspeople by sport) by city outside the United States, it could easily be argued that there should be more, not fewer, categories like this for American basketball players. Grutness...wha? 14:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most people, and their biographers, refer to people as coming from cities, even if they actually come from some neighbouring town or village. Quite a lot of people, certainly in England, do not even know which official area they live in, so my neighbours in Wilmslow often say they are from South Manchester. I see the same in the USA. I read about people from Detroit, not people from Michigan. While I am sure official sporting organisations are run on the basis of defined areas like states and counties it doesnt follow that our categorisation has to follow. Of course this may be rather inexact. But categorisation has to be pragmatic. Rathfelder (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be careful of applying British norms to American subjects. The UK does not have prominent states/provinces so of course the city is more prominent. Counties aren't typically where people are referenced as being from in either place. Rikster2 (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course that may be true. But I've read many thousands of Wikipedia biographies of all kinds and the vast majority locate the person as from a city or town if there is a connection. Very few locate them in a state, territory, region or the like.Rathfelder (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already given examples of basketball players categorized by state. City isn't irrelevant, there are just other categories for that (like "sportspeople from City X.") The issue is to what level is the occupation/city intersection actually defining. Rikster2 (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone ever said that city is never mentioned. They sound like sportspeople from St. Louis, Baltimore, Oakland in that context just as easily as "basketball players." It's not like their city of origin wouldn't be noted in their categories. Rikster2 (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that they are basketball players and not just sportspeople from that particular city is defining. That St. Louis is in Missouri or Baltimore is in Maryland is less defining than their sport and city combination.--User:Namiba 17:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you substantiate this by ... what exactly? I mean, the articles happen to be about basketball players and talk about their personal connection to ythe city. But again, to me it seems like you see the same stories about boxers, football players or track athletes all the time. Rikster2 (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. That is what I am arguing. Basketball players from X and Players of American football from X are valid because sources regularly show that they have strong connections to particular cities, not just the state as a whole.--User:Namiba 18:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then that isn't "exactly." The mentions of the city are generic - nothing unique about basketball vs. other sports. Those stories show a "sportsperson from city x" to me - that adequately covers off what that shows. You were more convincing when you were sharing sources that arguably show that being a basketball player from certain cities generically (NYC, LA) is actually defining. These stories don't show that any more than someone trying to make the case that a story about a "high school sophomore from Topeka" category is needed instead of "high school students from Topeka" because the article mentioned their class. These articles are adequately covered by categories as (for instance) Jayson Tatum is already in "sportspeople from St. Louis" and about 10 different basketball categories, including from Missouri. Rikster2 (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could it possibly be relevant that a person is a sportsperson from the city but not that they are a basketball player from the city? And what use to navigation is there in throwing all of a city's sports players into one undifferentiated category?Grutness...wha? 03:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So User:Rikster2, you support keeping the NYC category, right?[16]--User:Namiba 19:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could. If we are saying that the reason we keep is that the intersection is defining as based on reliable sources and that similar city categories that CAN'T produce such sources should be deleted. We have already seen this creep in other categories (and in other basketball by city categories frankly). Is that the basis on which you argue for keeping it? Rikster2 (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2020 (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.

1 and 2 article Municipal Award subcategories

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/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Awards by municipalities in Ireland (No direct articles)
  • Propose Deleting Category:Awards by municipalities in Israel (No direct articles)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCLOCATION
I created the Category:Municipal awards parent category but the whole tree only has 17 articles total so far and about half of those are under the New York City and Tel Aviv subcats. Obviously I have no conceptual objection to categorization by country and city, but I don't think the WP:SMALLCAT exception for "a large overall accepted sub-categrization scheme" applies when the whole tree has been anemic since it was created back in 2011. No objection to recreating any of these categories later if they ever get up to 5 articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should have mentioned that the 4 actual articles here are all already under an award by country category. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could have checked that too. In that case the dual merge suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:18, 1 December 2020 (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:Fictional murdered people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 10:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. ★Trekker (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 14:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Premature Conceptually favor deletion but I think we should let the subcategories play out before we act on the parent category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (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:South Korean television series based on non-South Korean television series

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:South Korean television series based on non-South Korean television series. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: in the "Israeli" category, there is one page, meanwhile "Taiwanese" has 2 pages. So, those categories shall be merged into "South Korean TV series based on non-South Korean". St3095 (?) 06:29, 1 December 2020 (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:Banjar

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) 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article Banjar, West Java. 114.79.7.112 (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2020 (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:HBO Family

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Category:HBO Family

Indian magnetic persons

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 The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are duplicates, but neither is really needed because all they contain is Arun Raikar, which is also in the parent Category:Magnetic persons. I'm unsure if the parent category should be deleted, but at least these two should be. (Note that I have nominated these two plus the parent category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2020 (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:Bosnian Genocide deniers

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. Users can remove articles that do not belong. There was some support for a rename. This is probably best pursued in a new nomination which can focus on the renaming issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has serious issues with WP:NONDEF, WP:BLP, and WP:VERIFY/WP:OR. I will give some examples:

If purged of all problematic entries, the category would fall under the 5-article minimum. Also, this category is going to continue to be a magnet for VERIFY and BLP issues, so it's best to delete. (t · c) buidhe 01:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have slightly adapted my comment, as I am neither insisting to purge all articles that nominator mentioned nor suggesting to limit purging to these articles. Just generally, only keep biographies in the category insofar if they are defined by this characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have subsequently included renaming proposal, and reworded "oppose" to more fitting "keep".--౪ Santa ౪99° 08:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the assertion that specific articles don't contain the words "denier", or that it is somehow not "defining": for example,
    1. Vojislav Šešelj is included in A Biographical Encyclopedia of Contemporary Genocide and Genocide in Bosnia: The Policy of "Ethnic Cleansing". He denied there was any genocide or ethnic cleansing in court. The court cases are nearly the entirety of the article.
    2. Michael Parenti has written about the "siege of Sarajevo as perfectly reasonable." It is the top publication for this author.
    3. Edward S. Herman "criticized the validity of the term genocide in the case of Srebrenica." And co-authored a book, The Politics of Genocide, the most recent listed publication.
  • Every article I've checked has had a fairly specific reason for inclusion: they deny there was a genocide.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think from what I see that he was talking about Buidhe, but I agree with you that we should keep this civil, professional and explain why we oppose or support and not just blindly support Balkan “teams” or accuse others which you are right has always been an issue when RfCs or Page deletions arise in the Balkan arena. However there does seem to be meatpupetying at times when voting blocks turn up so I get Santasa99’s point there. Also articles should be verified yes.OyMosby (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2020 (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:Recipients of the Order of Mono

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, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Mono
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders visit Togo, or vice versa, the Order of Mono is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Kim Il-sung, Levi Eshkol and Josip Broz Tito are not remotely defined by this award. The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2020 (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:Recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award

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, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:OCASSOC)
The Silver Buffalo Award is an award for adults from the Boy Scouts of America. Readers of Walt Disney, Ronald Reagan Nancy Reagan, George W. Bush, Douglas MacArthur and Zig Ziglar will be baffled to find this category at the bottom of those pages since the articles make no mention of the award (or even Scouting in general). Where Scouting is mentioned in these articles it usually sounds like WP:OCASSOC: Hank Aaron was a member in his youth, Tom C. Clark made it to Eagle Scout in his youth, John Glenn was in a similar organization in his youth, while Roy Chapman Andrews was made an "honorary scout" as an adult. To be fair, there a few articles here defined by Scouting like William D. Campbell, Norman Rockwell and Rex Tillerson, but they are already well categorized under the organization. All the winners are already listified here in a separate list article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2020 (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