The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. hmwithτ 22:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former philosophy majors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Someone's major in college might be worth noting in their bio, but it really isn't a suitable basis for categorization. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Theoretical speedy-ish delete as essentially a re-creation of Notable Philosophy Majors. The old category was deleted on 16 OCT 2008, this one created on 17 OCT 2008. Both were created by User:Llamabr. Or just delete regularly on its own (de)merits per Cgingold. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - you beat me to it, GO. I just discovered that after leaving a note at the creator's talk page. Cgingold (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Couldn't resist as I remembered closing/deleting the other one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- I was just amazed at the super-hero speed you seem to possess. LOL Cgingold (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I thought it would be good to let this CFD run, since Llamabr evidently wasn't persuaded that the previous CFD was authoritative. Cgingold (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've no problem with letting it run. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created this new category, as the previous criticism before was in calling the category 'notable philosophy majors', as that's redundant (since notability is implied, I guess). Anyway, I take it that it's just as interesting a category as Category:Princeton University alumni, as I'd guess most of those people don't even work in a field that's related to Princeton. Rather, it's an historical fact about those individuals that binds them together, and that I figured some readers would find interesting. But whatever. Llamabr (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & last time. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Painfully obvious delete - college major is non-defining; I'd guess most people don't even work in a field related to their majors. Otto4711 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for being 'non-defining': I don't know, not to you maybe (since you weren't a philosophy major), but that's not the way Steve Martin describes it, as quoted in his article. Likewise Bruce Lee and many others. It might be that studying philosophy doesn't prepare one explicitly for a career (as would studying, e.g., business), but rather causes one to be a certain type of person -- such as those in this category. Llamabr (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An individual might think of it as "defining" some part of themselves, but it's not defining to the rest of the world. If you did a poll of world citizens that asked—"what do Steve Martin and Bruce Lee have in common?", "majored in philosophy in university" would not be a very popular answer, I'm guessing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true, but that seems to me the backward way to approach writing an encyclopedia. If we only included information that's obvious, and common knowledge, it would seem to undermine the motivation for writing the thing in the first place. (llamabr not logged in at work). 170.140.217.74 (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although keeping it would obviate the campus bar ice-breaker question. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Kbdank71 16:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Washington law to Category:Washington (U.S. state) law

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Somehow missed nominating this one in the recent mass-nomination of Washington categories. Probably now speediable under criterion #6. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency. I agree it's speediable, but it's also fine to list it here. - Stepheng3 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Plant common name disambiguation to Category:Plant common names

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Two categories exist for the same purpose. I propose merging into the more established one. Stepheng3 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2009 (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: double upmerge and delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Loudoun County Fire-Rescue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Small (one article) and little potential for growth, as it is unlikely that many other Loudoun County fire-rescue services are notable enough for articles. The one article should be upmerged to Category:Loudoun County, Virginia and Category:Fire departments in Virginia. — jwillbur 18:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category creator's rationale: Delete I agree. In hindsight, the category was a bad idea. I am in the process of creating a new article into which that lone article will be merged, and would still fit better in the two aforementioned categories anyway. --MPD ^{T / C} 18:54, 13 January 2009 (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:Lists of theologians and religious studies scholars. Kbdank71 16:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of theologians and religious scholars to Category:Lists of Christian theologians Category:Lists of theologians

Nominator's rationale: Category name conflates two separate groups, theologians and scholars of religious studies Editor2020 (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Lists of theologians, which would enable Muslim theologians to appear too. All the presnet entries are Christian. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two Muslim lists that had been part of the category were removed by the nominator just prior to this CFD. (They've now been restored.) Cgingold (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Lists of Christian theologians. Category:Lists of theologians could be created as a parent if necessary. -choster (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The category is now well populated, in accord with its original intent -- grouping together lists for both theologians and scholars, from across the religious spectrum. So I suggest Keeping as is, and possibly creating a new sub-category for Christian theologians if deemed necessary. (more later) Cgingold (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There is an issue with the usage "Religious scholars", which in current categorization is Category:Religious studies scholars.--Editor2020 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, quite right. I was intending to address that, but had to leave off. What say we rename to Category:Lists of theologians and religious studies scholars? Cgingold (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, per Cgingold.--Editor2020 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 16:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2008-09 South Pacific cyclone season to Category:2008–09 South Pacific cyclone season

Nominator's rationale: WP:MOSDASH –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename other categories together. If we want to rename this category, we'd better rename other Southern Hemisphere TC seasons' categories together: for example, Category:2007-08 South Pacific cyclone season to Category:2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season, Category:2007-08 Australian cyclone season to Category:2007–08 Australian cyclone season, Category:2008-09 Southwest Indian cyclone season to Category:2008–09 Southwest Indian cyclone season...--HERB (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2009 (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) 00:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Warriors gangs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Individual gangs, apart from possibly The Warriors (gang) have not been shown to have any notability. I have redirected all the articles apart from The Warriors (gang) following discussion on redirecting after no sources to indicate notability have been found following this discussion: Talk:The_Warriors_(film)#Gang_Page_Deletions_and_Redirects and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Turnbull AC's (gang). This category becomes effectively unpopulated Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - small category with no hope of expansion because of the lack of independent notability of the gangs. Otto4711 (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 19:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Matches at the Wembley Stadium (1923) to Category:Events at Wembley Stadium (1923)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It was never called "the Wembley Stadium", only "Wembley Stadium", so the "the" has to go. Additionally, changing "matches" to "events" would allow the inclusion of concerts, etc. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not sure what utility there is in grouping events by the venue in which they were held. I know it's common for us to delete groupings of venues by event, e.g., WrestleMania venues. Groupings of events by venue seems equally strange to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems to veer perilously close to Wikipedia is not a directory as is and would veer even closer if it were expanded to include non-sporting events. A more serious issue is that of category clutter, especially if this is expanded to include all events by venue. To give just one example, Cher's Farewell Tour played for 7,825 performances in some 4,500 venues (OK, I'm exaggerating. Slightly.). Imagine what the category list would look like if this events by venue scheme took root. Otto4711 (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - for info, the user who created the category under discussion has now created a new category at the name I suggested and begun moving the articles across, without waiting for this CfD to finish. I have no idea how we proceed now..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I suggest that, once the creator of the category has moved all of them over, the original category be speedied as an empty category (or as having been blanked by its creator) and that this CfD be changed to cover the new one. – PeeJay 12:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:Wembley Stadium or Category:Wembley old Stadium -- This is an unsatisfactory category, sicne it is only categorising FA Cup finals, at least at present. Furhtermore, either name is unsatisfactory, because of the date 1923 being included. This does match the article, but I would suggest that the article shoudl aloso be renamed. I note that the putative parent category "Wembley Stadium (1923)" does not exist, so that this category is orphaned. There may be some point in segregating events at the old stadoum from those at the present one, but I am not wholly convinced. I certainly see no point in separating events (or matches) at the stadium from a category on the stadoium itself, which can never have more than one articel in it, namely the one that should be the amin article for a matches or events category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete performance by venue category is a flavor of performer by performance, subject of numerous precedents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - I have been swayed by the opinions expressed by others above me. – PeeJay 13:21, 17 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 16:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current Members of the Canadian House of Commons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another "current" category, which are better and easier maintainable via a list, which in this case already exists at List of House members of the 40th Parliament of Canada. These "current" categories for political offices have been deleted frequently:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_24#Category:Current_female leaders

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_20#Category:Current_female_United_States_Senators

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_14#Category:Current_female_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_13#Category:Incumbent_Native_American_leaders

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_12#Category:Incumbent_Indian_Deputy_Chief_Ministers

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_12#Category:Incumbent_Indian_Chief_Ministers

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_12#Category:Current_female_heads_of_government

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_3#Category:Incumbent_Indian_Governors

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_9#Category:Current_political_office-holders

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Current_Members_of_the_United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Armed_Services

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Current_California_State_Senators

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_21#Category:Sitting_Manchester_MPs

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_22#Category:Current_British_MPs

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_4#Category:Current_female_heads_of_state

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_28#Category:Current_governors_of_the_United_States

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_7#Category:LGBT_politicians_from_the_United_States_currently_in_office

Note especially that the almost identical schemes for the current memberships of the lower houses of both Britain and the U.S. have also been deleted. These types of nominations are repeated fairly frequently so I don't think I need to go into a lot of detail to further explain why these "current" categories have been deleted. We don't generally categorize "current" vs. "former" due to maintenance issues—and if fully implemented it could expand large part of the category system by 2-fold, etc., etc. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:House members of the 40th Parliament of Canada or something similar. In Britain, the many articles on MPs are being recategorised by Parliament (though with dates not ordinals). I do not see why this solution should not be used in Canada. The precise form of the name needs to be worked out by Canadians (and I am British). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like a reasonable solution, if this is wanted in category form. I'm fine with deletion or renaming to that. The information is in the list, so I'm not sure if the duplicate category would be wanted or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone wants to rework the entire category to conform to the British MP cats. Note: as far as I know, only the UK have this set up. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2009 (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:Madhya Pradesh politicians. Kbdank71 16:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Madhya Pradesh 2008 Lagislative Assembly Candidate to Category:Madhya Pradesh 2008 Legislative Assembly candidates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Technical nomination. Incomplete nomination found doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Indian politicians since we typically don't categorize people for being candidates (except for the most prominent political positions, like U.S. president or Canadian MP for Moose Jaw). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming per Peter's suggestion is also fine with me if it helps for consensus purposes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle -- Category:Indian politicians is an enormous one. There are subcategories by party, but I think it needs to be split into categories by state, perhaps also with a federal category for those in the Federal institutions. Accordingly (as a start to that) rename to Category:Madhya Pradesh politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming as per nom Don't merge to Category:Indian politicians. It's a good category as is, as long as it's spelled right. --Mr Accountable (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is someone going to go through all the Indian politicians and split them up according to this schema or is this going to be a one-off to give apparent extra weight to this set of candidates among the many? If not, upmerge. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Madhya Pradesh politicians. No reason to categorize by the year they were candidates. If there are no term limits, a victor can be listed for many different years. Clearly not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Vegaswikian.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 19:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bill Brown

Category:Colin McCool

Category:Doug Ring

Category:Ian Johnson

Category:Lindsay Hassett

Category:Ray Lindwall

Category:Arthur Morris

Category:Neil Harvey

Category:Ron Hamence

Category:Sam Loxton

Category:Don Tallon

Category:Ron Saggers

Category:Bill Johnston (cricketer)

Category:Sid Barnes

Category:Ernie Toshack

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. These are all examples of overcategorization by eponymous category. Each of these categories only contains two articles: the main article of the same name and the article named "NAME SURNAME with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948" (i.e., "The Invincibles" team). Since in each case both articles should reference each other, the categories add nothing to navigatability or grouping of articles. These are not like Category:Donald Bradman (another member of the team), which actually is useful in grouping more than 2 relevant articles. All contents of these could be simply upmerged to Category:The Invincibles, the category about the 1948 Australian cricket team in England. It may have been a good team, but we certainly don't need a category for each member of it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate. Category:Keith Miller started in exactly the same fashion and was populated, and it didn't even take that long. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are easily created when needed. They are not created just to have so they can be populated later. Category:Keith Miller was created on 8 July 2008 and contains 8 articles, which works out to around 1 new article per month. If that rate holds, it will take 90 months (7½ years) for each of these categories to have 8 articles each. I suggest therefore that each be deleted without prejudice to re-creation when it has 8 articles to place in it. (Or however many can justify a category.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • At the pace that YellowMonkey works I anticipate them being populated much quicker than that! That is also a false comparision; the category was substantially populated shortly after creation, with YM creating multiple articles very quickly in July, with no new articles added to the category after July, i.e around 8 per month. I see no reason to think that there categories cannot be populated quickly. Indeed, YM has created around a dozen of the ""NAME SURNAME with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948" articles in the past week. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 has gone from creation to GA candidate in around 24 hours! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, and three more as well! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some were just created today, but I've been watching Category:Colin McCool since it was created 3 weeks ago and there's still only two articles in it. Anyway, none of this explains why we should keep the categories before they are needed, which they aren't, since each category has two articles. It's putting the cart before the horse. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mattinbgn. Currently 12 are at GAN, Loxton, Hassett, Harvey, Brown and Barnes been the ODI GANs. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All are now at GAN, but anyway....YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial keep There are a couple of players there with only one or two Test appearances, or none at all. I don't think these people will ever accumulate enough articles to warrant this kind of category, unless it later transpires they were aliens or something... Ron Hamence and Ron Saggers come to mind as players with little outside the Invincibles or their own articles. SGGH ^speak! 10:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Cricket people scare me Otto4711 (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (muffled laugh) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could this place be any more of a clique? No doubt this will be defended as humour, but it certainly does a good job of alienating other voices and making their opinions feel unwelcome. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This place"? (Cyberspace?) I dunno though, the rationale for keeping these that has been provided is looking awfully "clique-ish", and comments like "What you mean there [sic] is not well known to you" don't exactly make others' "opinions feel welcome" (opinions have feelings?). I find that if you can't relax and laugh at yourself, you may find life a bit boring. It's just a CfD in WP, it's not about life and death issues. (Though I do know cricket fans who do act like it is ...) I apologize if my laughter offended you. I thought it was better than me laughing behind users' backs, and I tried to muffle it, after all ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lighten up, Francis. Otto4711 (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete all – this is no reflection whatever on the quality of the articles but hardly any sportspeople merit an eponymous category (see eg Category:Categories named after sportspeople ... Pele? Beckenbauer? Maradonna? George Best? Magic Johnson? Beckham? Rod Laver? Sampras? Michael Johnson? McEnroe? These are not even well-known cricketers apart from the legendary Bradman.) I'm also very doubtful about Category:The Invincibles (which sounds more like a film than cricket, a game with which I am familiar - indeed we have The Invincibles, a disamb page). Do we have categories for particular transient teams? Occuli (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not well-known? Nonsense. What you mean there is not well known to you. Arthur Morris. Ray Lindwall, Keith Miller and Neil Harvey would serious candidates for an all-time Australian best ever XI, Hassett and Johnson both captained Australia. I take SGGHs point about Hamence and Saggers though. Secondly, how is it relevent how well they are known. Having a category isn't supposed to be about "merit" (what, you have to earn a category?) or a sign of how well known someone is, but a grouping of related articles around a theme. It says nothing about how renowned someone is, but merely marks that there is a series of articles substantially about you. As for the Invincibles, this name is well attested in the parent article and is the common name for the team in Australia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See how many of them were in the ICC Hall of Fame. Four are regarded by the world governing body to be in the top 55 players of all time. Lindwall, Bradman and Miller were in the 10 inaugural members of the ACHOF, so as of 1996, they were thought to be in the top-10 Australians of all time. Five were in the Australian Cricket Board Team of the Century. Sorry, Beckham isn't even in the top 50 in the past decade in terms of footballing merit. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has no bearing whatever on the categories under consideration. Johnlp (below) gives a good rationale on this. Occuli (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not convinced of this. The corollary could be that anyone whose biography is splittable into distinct sections could qualify for a category, so it might, in time, apply to most cricketers who've appeared in several series, most politicians who've fought several elections, footballers who played in different World Cups, Olympic champions, etc etc. I don't think that's what categories are for, and I do think that that is what internal links are for. There is something of a can of worms here, and I am wary. However, I can see that there will be some exceptions: people like playwrights or novelists might, for example, warrant a category that covers their works where those works merit an individual article - Shakespeare, Dickens etc. The difference with these people, though, is that the works (plays, novels) are not usually an intrinsic part of the person's biography; their creation may be, and their critical reception too, but not the works themselves, and it would be wrong to try to summarise, say, the plot of Macbeth as part of the article on Shakespeare. In the case of the cricketers here, fundamentally the articles are expanded parts of the biography, and I think the base biographical article is the thing that they should usually link back into. Bradman may be an exception, but then Bradman was exceptional and had influence beyond cricket. The others? I'm not convinced, and certainly not about the lesser lights on this list. Johnlp (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All per cogent and persuasive arguments of Good Ol’factory, Occuli, and Johnlp. Cgingold (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except Bradman - he definitely does deserve a separate category - not so much because he was the greatest cricketer ever but because there are likely to be numerous articles relating to him. On a related note, however, the parent category is incorrectly named. The article is at The Invincibles (cricket) for good reason - the category should be, too (and I'll be nominating it accordingly). Grutness...wha? 00:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradman's not included in the list that's up for deletion. Cgingold (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps it would be pertinent to ask what redlinks would realistically turn blue to populate each of these Cats. Taking the example of arguably one of the least notable Invincibles, Ernie Toshack, I'm interested to see a few article titles that would in due course be likely to be appended to the 2 already in the Cat. Given that there's no deadline, this would be a key consideration in whether these extra Cats are worth keeping or not. I'm already inclined to a Keep, based on how Miller and Bradman have developed, but the answer to this question could well persuade me either way and be useful to other readers too. (NB other users may find Category:Keith Miller and Category:Donald Bradman worth a moment's perusal). --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - seems like a bizarre way of making unnecessary multi-part articles. Difficult to envisage that most of these names actually merit anything beyond one good article each on Wikipedia - possibly on a cricket-specific website it would be different. HeartofaDog (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is not an AFD on the individual articles as implied by HeartofaDog. Given the existence of the articles, the catagories are a useful way of grouping the articles. Nothing useful would be achieved by deleting the catagories.--Grahame (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too am looking at the cats, not the articles. But the two are working together - the existence of the category is what makes it possible to create clumps of linked articles for subjects who only warrant one. HeartofaDog (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per ample precedent on eponymous cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2009 (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) 23:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT-related lists of organizations to Category:Lists of LGBT-related organizations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Technical nomination found doing cleanup. This looks like it was intended to be included in this discussion which resulted in a rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - Nah, I'm just yankin' ya, Rename per previous discussions. I swear I'm usually more careful in these group noms. Otto4711 (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Only make sense to rename. DiverseMentality 19:23, 17 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 19:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming (see drop-down box)

Category:Vincentian people to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines people

Category:Vincentian prisoners and detainees to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines prisoners and detainees

Category:Vincentian people convicted of murder to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines people convicted of murder

Category:Vincentian prisoners sentenced to death to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines prisoners sentenced to death

Category:Executed Vincentian people to Category:Executed Saint Vincent and the Grenadines people

Category:Vincentian diaspora to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines diaspora

Category:Vincentian expatriates to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines expatriates

Category:Vincentian expatriate footballers to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines expatriate footballers

Category:Vincentian expatriates in Malaysia to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines expatriates in Malaysia

Category:Vincentian expatriates in Trinidad and Tobago to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines expatriates in Trinidad and Tobago

Category:Vincentian expatriates in the United States to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines expatriates in the United States

Category:Vincentian people by religion to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines people by religion

Category:Vincentian Christians to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Christians

Category:Vincentian Latter Day Saints to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Latter Day Saints

Category:Vincentian Roman Catholics to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Roman Catholics

Category:Vincentian people by occupation to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines people by occupation

Category:Vincentian chiefs to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines chiefs

Category:Vincentian criminals to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines criminals

Category:Vincentian murderers to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines murderers

Category:Vincentian lawyers to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines lawyers

Category:Vincentian politicians to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines politicians

Category:Vincentian musicians to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines musicians

Category:Vincentian sportspeople to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines sportspeople

Category:Vincentian athletes to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines athletes

Category:Vincentian basketball players to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines basketball players

Category:Vincentian cricketers to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines cricketers

Category:Vincentian footballers to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines footballers

Category:People of Vincentian descent to Category:People of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines descent

Category:Canadians of Vincentian descent to Category:Canadians of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines descent

Category:British people of Vincentian descent to Category:British people of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines descent

Category:Vincentian Americans to Category:American people of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines descent

Category:Vincentian culture to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines culture

Category:Vincentian music to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines music

Category:Vincentian society to Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines society

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. I am proposing that all uses of "Vincentian" as an adjective/demonym be replaced with "Saint Vincent and the Grenadines" for the following reasons:

(1) The country of SVG includes the island of Saint Vincent and some of the Grenadines. While "Vincentian" or "Saint Vincentian" is often used to mean a subject from anywhere in SVG, it can also have a more limited meaning by referring to a subject specifically from the island of Saint Vincent. (It can also be misunderstood as being limited in this way even though the user may mean it in the broader sense.) Thus, "Vincentian" is ambiguous and can have the result of excluding subjects of the SVG when they are actually from the Grenadines as opposed to Saint Vincent. (This reason is similar to the rationale for using "Trinidad and Tobago" or "Saints Kitts and Nevis" as the adjective rather than "Trinidadian" or "Kittitian".)

(2) Adding to the ambiguity, the "Vincentians" is the most common English-language name for the Lazarists, or members of the "Congregation of the Mission", a Roman Catholic order that is part of the Vincentian Family of organizations. Using "Vincentian" could be misunderstood as referring to this group or something or someone else in the Vincentian Family. (This reason is similar to one of the reasons we use "Dominican Republic" and "Dominica" as adjectives rather than "Dominican", the "Dominicans" also being a religious order.)

(3) We probably want to avoid using "Saint Vincentian and Grenadinian". While using "People from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines" could be done, renaming to use the name of the country as the adjective as in "Fooian XXX" would result in conformity with how other similar "problematic" nationality adjectives have been approached in WP, including Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis people; Category:Antigua and Barbuda people, Category:Trinidad and Tobago people; Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people; Category:Dominican Republic people; Category:Dominica people; Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people; Category:Serbia and Montenegro people; and Category:Wallis and Futuna people.

(4) Vincentian itself is a disambiguation page. (See points (1) & (2) above.) — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• mild support: This is a small category and could do with additions. Without this change then its difficult to see where SVG but not St Vincent would go. I do not find reason two presuasive however as the confusion will still happen if one is renamed. Victuallers (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why will there still be confusion? No one's going to think Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines people is referring to Lazarists, and if a category for the Vincentians is created it could be called Category:Lazarists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment with a cat this small and its likely movement it may not be a big deal, but I don't want it claimed as a precedent to take shortcut names that may refer to part of a country, e.g., using Czech when we mean Czechoslovak; using Bosnian, Trinidadian, per the examples (3) in Good Olfactory's list. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nom., as per precedent Mayumashu (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nom, solidly argued on all 4 fronts. Occuli (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2009 (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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. hmwithτ 22:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with gastritis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Appears to have been created specially for Jackie Stewart. A non-defining condition. Having gastritis is not on par with having most of the other diseases/disabilities that have categories. People don't typically die of gastritis, and it doesn't affect lives in the way being an amputee, having paraplegia, or being blind does. See related CfDs that deleted other "medical condition" categories for non-fictional people:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_22#Category:People_with_alcoholism

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_26#Category:People_with_ADHD

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_2#Category:People_with_diabetes_type_1

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_5#Category:People_with_clinical_depression

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_27#Category:People_with_obsessive-compulsive_disorder

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_24#Category:People_with_dyslexia

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Category:People_with_glioblastoma_multiforme

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Category:People_diagnosed_with_clinical_depression

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_10#Category:People_with_agoraphobia

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_10#Category:People_with_eating_disorders

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_6#Category:People_with_diabetes

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_27#Category:Tinnitus_sufferers

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_7#Category:Diabetics

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_30#Category:People_with_anxiety_disorder

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_29#Category:Selectively_mute_people

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_28#Category:People_with_Poland_Syndrome

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_9#Category:People_with_Multiple_Personality_Disorder

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_15#Category:People_with_social_anxiety_disorder

— Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Clearly a NN medical condition. It is unlikely ever to be important enough to be a notable characteristic. A few of the others listed may have been deleted on grounds of verifiability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- As overcategorization of people based on a non-defining or trivial characteristic. - Stepheng3 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This just doesn't rise to the level of significance that would justify a category. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. OCAT by medical condition. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom and overcategorization. DiverseMentality 19:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.