Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 26

< July 25	July 27 >

July 26

Category:University of Nevada alumni

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; but it's been empty for more than 4 days so I'm deleting it as empty. If someone wants to re-create it as a parent container for subcategories that would be permitted, though doing so is not mandated by this close either. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is not needed. There were four pages in it but now there are zero because the four pages in it were supposed to be in Category:University of Nevada, Reno alumni so I put them there. michfan2123 (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Repurpose This should be a parent category for alumni of UNR and UNLV, the same way that Category:University of California alumni serves as a parent for alumni of all of the schools in the University of California. Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unless we desire to include the alumni from the school when it was called the University of Nevada in their own category. The system in Nevada is the Nevada System of Higher Education and as far as I know, with the exception of those who want UNR renamed back to University of Nevada, there is no University of Nevada. So if anyone knows otherwise do chime in. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard supra category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The creator has emptied the category. Dubious usefulness as a supercategory since it doesn't match the state's current usage. Ikluft (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. Debresser (talk) 21:13, 2 August 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.

Category:United States video game companies

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) 22:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States video game companies to Category:Video game companies of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the most common name in the main parent, Category:Companies of the United States by industry. If this one passes, then a follow on rename for most of the remaining categories will follow. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

support rename per nom, makes sense to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match corresponding categories in the parent. Alansohn (talk) 00:54, 3 August 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.

Category:Mountain ranges of Upstate California

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge (Category:Upper California was merged to Category:Northern California in the previous discussion, so doing this is consistent with that result.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Mountain ranges of Upstate California to Category:Mountain ranges of Northern California

Nominator's rationale: This is simply wrong to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool for a campaign for a particular name. The term is a neologism. It is not used by people in the area itself. See discussion about "Upstate California". Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close - nominator has opened a CFD for the parent category. The result there should determine the names of the subcategories. Otto4711 (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deletion of parent category at the CfD cited by Otto. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 3 August 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.

Category:Films about documentaries

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) 22:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an unnecessary category. There are only two entries, both of which are mockumentaries and are included in Category:Mockumentaries. Cjc13 (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fine by me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of the discussion about Category:Documentaries about documentaries. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 2 August 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.

Category:Black Lace albums

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: Nom withdrawn (non admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Nominator's rationale: Pointless category. Only one of the band's albums (the last of I think 3 "Greatest Hits" offerings) has an article on wikipedia. It is unlikely that any of the other albums would be notable - they are all basically rehashes of each other. For the rest, there is a list of albums in the Black Lace article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia:ALBUM#Categories which states: "Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future)." Lugnuts (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Part of larger scheme. Occuli (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy snuff. Not aware of this consensus before (should have looked more closely I suppose). I therefore withdraw nom as in error. Someone please close.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 28 July 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.

Category:Documentaries about documentaries

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) 22:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category only contains films about Michael Moore films and there is already a Category:Films about Michael Moore Cjc13 (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosox5555 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As someone who works a lot in the doc category I always thought there was overcategorization here, as if someone has gone through every permutation of films about docs, docs about docs, docs about films, etc. without regard to whether these were all needed or not. Thanks for cleaning this up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shawn in Montreal. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 2 August 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.

Category:Astronauts elected to political office

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.

Categorisations by intersections of previous careers are prima facie cases of overcategorisation by trivial intersection. In this case it appears that this category is being used to advance a particular thesis based on the reasoning in the article Astronaut-politician (which itself seems to be something of an WP:OR synthesis), viz that the degree of fame achieved as an astronaut had a direct and causal link to success in the field of politics. Irrespective of the merits of the theory, this does not constitute a defining characteristic - it is instead an biographical observation, which needs to be supported by evidence.

--Xdamr^talk 23:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Yet another in the endless series of "trivial intersection of two unrelated careers" WP:OCAT violations. Delete as a category, though listify if desired. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The former career of politicians is a notable intersection. We need a parent category Category:Politicians by previous career for this and similar categfories that keep being nominated. It is inevitable that former astronauts will take a particular interest in space exploration, just as scientist politicians will take an interest in government policy on science, and teachers in policy on education. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial intersection of former career and later career. No encyclopedic relationship between "used to be an astronaut" and "got elected to public office". Yet another in a long string of "became famous in one arena and might have parleyed that fame into a political career" categories. As always this argues for an article that examines the relationship between prior fame and political aspirations, not a series of categories detailing every former career of every politician. Otto4711 (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a strong defining combination that captures the fact that their status as astronaut / cosmonaut was the primary factor for their being elected as politicians. Nearly every reliable and verifiable source I have seen for these individuals defines them as astronaut / politicians, such as this source from The Cincinnati Enquirer mentioning how "Walter Cronkite narrates a one-hour biography of the astronaut-politician", this announcement from the University of Queensland about a lecture from Harrison Schmitt, who "will speak of his experiences as a geologist, astronaut, politician" and The Washington Post (this article), describes how cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova "She obtained a doctorate in aerospace engineering and became a politician" after her time in space. I guess we can use reliable and verifiable sources that rebut the WP:OCAT claim and see how these individuals are defined, or we could just accept the arbitrary "is not" unsupported by even a shred of any relevance to any policy. Alansohn (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So by this logic we should have Category:Geologists elected to public office since your source apparently gives equal weight to Schmitt's astronaut and geologist occupations. It is hardly surprising that sources would mention the various careers of their subjects, but simply being mentioned in sources does not establish definingness. The assertion that being an astronaut was "the primary factor" behind anyone's becoming a politician is original resaerch. Otto4711 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schmitt's being a geologist led to his becoming an astronaut. His being an astronaut led to his being elected as a politician. As with athletes, astronauts who have moved into politics have entered at higher levels, not starting out in a race for dog catcher or running for city council. I do enjoy the WP:OR claim, which would entail an interpretation that reading all of the sources defining these individuals as astronaut politicians violates policy, and It's hardly surprising that sources define individuals by their defining characteristics. If you can find other geologist politicians (or any of the other increasingly far-fetched WP:WAX categories that will inevitably be concocted), I will be more than willing to consider it on its merits. For this category, why not deal with the reliable and verifiable sources that support the clear claim, of which I would be happy to supply a few dozen more. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many politicians who weren't astronauts (far more than seven, actually) have started off in a higher-level office without working their way up from dogcatcher or city councillor. So the idea that you have to have been an astronaut to start off in a state, provincial or federal legislative office without having been a local official first just doesn't wash. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:WAX. The sources explicitly discuss astronauts using their notability as astronauts to achieve higher office, making a direct connection between being an astronaut and becoming a politician. What does the fact that other people have done the same have to do with anything if the reliable and verifiable sources are defining them as astronaut-politicians? Why should the fact that you don't like it trump reliable sources showing it as defining? Alansohn (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to reread WP:WAX, because it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what I said. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article from 1964 in the St. Petersburg Times calls John Glenn an "astronaut turned politician" and discussed directly what some felt to be an "undesireable precedent in astronaut's capitalizing on their fame to enter political roles" with some grumbling that Glenn did not follow the standard "step-by-step progression up the political ladder" by "aspiring immediately for the Senate". Same at This article from The Miami Herald that leads off on a story about the 1984 U.S. presidential race by talking about "Astronaut-turned-politician John Glenn". Canada's Edmonton Sun described "Edmonton Sun defines "astronaut turned politician Marc Garneau" and this piece by Dick Morris in U.S. News & World Report defines "astronaut turned Sen. Harrison 'Jack' Schmitt" rather clearly. In 2000, Space.com described "Yuri Baturin, one of Russia's major space policy experts [as] Russia's only cosmonaut/politician, having been a former aide to President Boris Yeltsin". The sources are clear in making the connection between being an astronaut and becoming a politician. Alansohn (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing that reliable sources don't mention their subject's various occupations, so posting link after tedious link to sources that mention both occupations seems rather pointless. Some astronauts became politicians. So what. More didn't than did so there's hardly a causal connection, much less even a simple correlation. Otto4711 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that sources can be found which mention both facts does not, in and of itself, make the intersection of those two facts a defining characteristic. Any good coverage of any politician is going to talk about their prior career regardless of whether they were an astronaut, an actor, a lawyer, a priest, a belly dancer or a retail sales clerk. To become a defining characteristic, you would need to prove that there exists some body of research proving that astronaut-politicians do their job in a way so fundamentally different from non-astronaut politicians (or non-politician astronauts) that they are seen by reliable independent sources to constitute a unique phenomenon by virtue of the basic way they go about doing their job. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are not mere mentions of individuals who by coincidence happened to be an astronaut. The tedious part here is the calculated and deliberate disregarding of sources that describe individuals as an "astronaut-turned-politician", reliable and verifiable independent sources using the three-word phrase to define the person. The coverage could not be any clearer in discussing the relationship between being an astronaut and becoming a politician, to the point of quoting sources upset that astronauts are taking advantage of their astronaut-hood to push for higher political office than they should be entitled to. That these individuals are defined in this matter in reliable and verifiable sources is what makes it defining and the claim that there needs to be "research proving that astronaut-politicians do their job in a way so fundamentally different from non-astronaut politicians" is complete and total nonsense that cannot be taken seriously. One of the most pathetic aspect of CfDs is that there is absolutely no definition of what is "defining", which allows the basest IHATEIT denial of sources to constitute a valid argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pathetic thing is editors who simplistically dismiss the concerns of other editors by chirping "IHATEIT, IHATEIT" when those editors' concerns have nothing to do with hating anything. Otto4711 (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've dismissed the concerns because they amount to nothing more than an arbitrary choice that you don't like this category, disregarding sources that show your concerns are non-existent. Would you care to address the reliable and verifiable sources that show the defining connection or is this another case of reliable sources never apply at CfD? Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again, the constant chirp chirp chirp of "you don't like it". Like that even means anything coming from you with the number of times you've tried to paste that phony label on everyone who disagrees with you. I've addressed the sources in this and any number of other CFDs by explaining that being included in reliable sources is the standard for notability and that not every verifiable fact is category fodder. Otto4711 (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree with your straw man "that not every verifiable fact is category fodder". I am sure that I can find sources that refer to certain individuals as an "astronaut" and somewhere else as a "vegetarian", and there might well be a valid argument that there is no connection between the two. But when I read a source that describes "Astronaut-turned-politician John Glenn" -- one of many to use variations of this description for Glenn and other space travelers, such as Valentina Tereshkova being defined as a "Russian Cosmonaut and Politician" (see here) -- we are seeing the textbook definition of what it means to be a defining characteristic. The chirp chirp chirp that allows the clearest possible reliable and verifiable sources defining individuals as "Astronauts elected to political office" to be ignored because someone simply insists "is not" only perpetuates the inherent disruption of the CfD game. Now that we agree that not all characteristics in reliable sources are defining, would you care to address the reliable and verifiable sources that show the defining connection here or is this just another case of reliable sources never applying at CfD under any circumstances? Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely every prior occupation that any politician ever had can be combined into a construction of the "former-occupation-turned politician" variety; it doesn't automatically make every such combination a defining characteristic of the person in its own right. For this category to be seen as "defining", you need to be able to write an actual, properly sourced and reasonably detailed article about the phenomenon of astronaut-turned-politicians — not just a list, but a real article — which makes clear why and how being an astronaut-turned-politician is objectively different from being an actor-turned-politician, a plumber-turned-politician, a musician-turned-politician or a delivery-man-turned-politician. The fact that you can point to the existence of a phrase does not make it a defining characteristic if it's not possible to write an article about what actually makes it a defining characteristic. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "prove how they are qualitatively different" standard is not only nonsensical, but it's already been satisfuied here based on the sources provided. Defining characteristics are those that are used to define people, and seeing these individuals defined as "astronaut-politicians" in reliable and verifiable sources is what makes this defining. It would be a no-brainer to write this article using the sources I've already included here, which directly discuss how such individuals have been able to parlay their fame as astronauts into higher political office. Of course, once each manufactured hurdle is passed another one will be created right behind it. My prediction is "delete the category because the article exists". Alansohn (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a phrase in a few media sources does not make something a defining characteristic. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had already written one new article today, so astronaut-politician is my second so far. This should address the issue with reliable and verifiable sources discussing astronauts "capitalizing on their fame" as a way to get into politics at a higher level. Alansohn (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an article about a documented and recognized phenomenon of "astronaut-politicians" — it's just a list of astronauts who were subsequently elected to political office, with a couple of the entries expanded to look more substantial, and fails to demonstrate that the phrase actually encompasses a distinct phenomenon with academic research to support it. It merely documents uses of a phrase that's identical to the phrase used for every other prior-occupation-politician combo on earth. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per keepers, and the precedent of the previous actor-politicians debate. As there, members should be independently notable in each capacity, but I guess all astronauts are notable. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actor-politician discussions closed no consensus so they hardly serve as precedent. Far more double occupation categories have been deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. The category has value only to promote the OR thesis that there is a causal connection. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that 7/496 astronauts have subsequently been elected to national office. Can any other occupation show as high a %? Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like vice presidents being elected president (14/47)? But this is already captured by the two categories for those offices. Also, a huge percentage of politicians are also lawyers; does this mean we should create a category to draw attention to this statistic? Or do we let the reader make that connection herself? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being vice-president is an office within the occupation of politician, not a separate occupation. Thank God, nothing like 1.5% of all the lawyers in history have been elected to national office. They may be "a huge percentage of politicians" but remain a miniscule one of lawyers. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom as trivia and per previous "double occupation" categories that have been deleted. Categorize them as astronauts; categorize them as politicians; no need to categorize them as the intersection of the two. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you truly believe that the fact that your laundry list of dissimilar closes shows that vaguely related categories you call "double occupation" categories have been deleted actually constitutes a policy justification for deleting a category? Do you actually believe that reliable and sources showing that the media treats this as a defining category can be ignored simply because you deem it to be "trivia" or because you have arbitrarily decided that the category is "not needed"? In all seriousness, would you accept your vote here as a valid justification for deletion if you were closing, let alone treat it as being the "better" argument? Alansohn (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you truly believe that these rhetorical flourishes constitute an actual rebuttal to his proposal? Former astronausts who become politicians are members of category A and of category B. Wikipedia identifies this. The only value in also creating a category A&&B is to assert some kind of point about this combination, and that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia based on NPOV. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rhetorical flourishes are worthless. But I do believe that the reliable and verifiable sources clearly show a defining connection. Isn't it a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:OR to ignore reliable sources with nothing but rhetorical flourishes that ignore these sources that show the defining connection? Alansohn (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll ask one more time, in hopes that you'll stop repeating yourself and come up with an answer: Why? Why do we need a category for "A+B" when we have categories for A and for B? What purpose (not counting "I have a point to demonstrate with this") does it serve? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Alansohn has demonstrated with ample sources that references to these people mention astronaut and politician in the same breath. If there are sources for chiropodist-footballers, let its category flourish. Occuli (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete - I'm off the mind to delete this. OK, so we have astronaut politicians - is the need for a category based on the strength of both careers, or just the fact one did the other before/after? If politicians is not the issue, then why not pilots who became astronauts, or astronauts that became businesspeople? In 2years when the Virgin spaceship gets into the air, will we also have politicians who became astronauts? Where could this all end? There are sources for pretty much anything you want, the question is: is there any logic, let alone any need, for this category? At present there are so few you can dual-tag them, in 100years time there will be so many there will be another delete debate! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the other arguments have fallen into three schools of advanced thought: The "trivial" school, the academy of the "slippery slope" and the university of WP:WAX. This vote seems to fall into a mix of the latter two. There is no reason to care about any of the irrelevant "what abouts" when we have reliable and verifiable sources that show there is a defining connection between the two. If you want to create some alternative categories that you believe correspond to this one, please feel free to do so, with each one evaluated on its own merits or lack thereof. "Where could this all end?" With further turning CfD into a circus in which categories are kept or retained based on arbitrary preferences rather than any semblance of principles such as the reliable and verifiable sources that are the bedrock standard of Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am thinking this discussion is going in the same direction as the last one for Category:Jewish astronauts, which you can find here. At least there we were debating about more than 7 people. There is a need for a debate on the whole structure of the tree, at some point. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changed my vote, in light of the comments by Bearcat. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not defining. While I think some of the discussion above, while well intentioned is not supportable by fact. I decided to look at Phạm Tuân first. You really have to look at that article to find the words member of the Vietnam National Assembly. Almost an after thought at the tail end of the article. No tie in between that and having been an astronaut. You could make a better case that his military carer let to that position. In fact, there is no indication at all in the article that this is an elected position! While this may be elected, it is also the legislative arm of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Vietnam. I'm not convinced that this makes that position the same as someone who runs in a non socialist state. Then you have Valentina Tereshkova who was mostly appointed to political positions and was elected to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet by the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. Not exactly what most readers would consider an election. Then we have Harrison Schmitt where the article makes no attempt to tie his election into his having been an astronaut. However a case could be made that his committee assignments were influenced by his having been an astronaut. So in the end, this category is nothing but a trivial intersection of two unrelated careers. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per actor politician cat, a defining characteristic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the last discussion on Category:Actor-politicians was a no consensus which is a big difference from a keep or acceptance of that as a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete -- Trivial intersection. Becoming an astronaut may have helped with initial name recognition, just as being investigated for murder has also helped with initial name recognition in other instances. See for example, http://politicalgraveyard.com/special/space.html, where various American politicians that have been in space are listed. Note that not all were actually elected, and several were elected before going to space. Therefore, it's clearly not "defining". There's a specious new article Astronaut-politician (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created to support this category after nomination. That should be deleted, too, or renamed to include these few entries in a list.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the other ones be "Politician-astronauts" rather than "Astronaut-politicians"? The existence of webpages about astronauts who became politicians suggest it is no trivial. It is because they have been astronauts that provides them with the public platform to be politicians. Cjc13 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category under discussion is titled "Astronauts elected to political office", which excludes politicians sent into space. Half your argument is a WP:WAX about a presumed Category:People investigated for murder who were elected to political office and the other half depends on a misreading of the category. Are there any genuine policy issues here? Alansohn (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alansohn's refs. Intersection of two high-profile topics which in this case has made it a high-profile topic of its own. Enough non-trivial examples to populate the category. Ikluft (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that they were astronauts has an affect on their political career as it enables them to progress more quickly to higher office. Cjc13 (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia, random intersection, Category:Astronauts who became vegetarians. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Czech cosmonaut Vladimir Remek included in this category: he was elected into the EU parliament some 25 years after his flight. Category:Sales representatives elected to political office or Category:Minor diplomatic official elected to political office or Category:Pilots elected to political office or Military personel elected to political office would be more fitting. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading his profile on the European Parliament website, being a cosmonaut is clearly the most significant thing he has done. Cjc13 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how being a cosmonaut involves going into outer space I would think such a statement could probably be made about anyone who was a cosmonaut. ... This reminds me of the Onion's newspaper headline and article about the first moon landing. Going into outer space is kind of a big deal ... but that doesn't mean we need to combine doing so with being elected to something. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the question. The question should be : is how a politician reached his position significant ? Mostly the path is fairly mundane but in the case of astronauts, actors and sportspeople, their previous career has given a significant boost to their career as politicians. Cjc13 (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "significant boost", if such boost actually exists, is not because they were astronauts or actors or politicians but because they were known to the public. They became famous through whatever avenue and in some instances used that fame and the name recognition that came with it in furtherance of their political efforts. If Cindy Crawford decided to run for city council, news articles about her would undoubtedly describe her as a "model-turned-politician". Does that then demonstrate a defining link between the occupation of modeling and the occupation of politician? Nonsense. If Omarosa throws her hat in the ring for some office, is there suddenly a defining link between "Apprentice contestant" and "politician", because newspaper articles will describe her as such? Ridiculous. Where's the cutoff for the connection between former occupation and "politician"? Otto4711 (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There's nothing specifically about being an astronaut that makes a person more particularly likely to be a successful politician than any other person who has been in the news in a prominent way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being an astronaut is seen by the public as being an outstanding achievement, similar to being an actor or sportsmen. If these people had not been astronauts then they would not have been politicians. Cjc13 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume a person has an interest in running for political office. You state "If these people had not been astronauts then they would not have been politicians." How can we say that? What if they had become well-known as an actor? Or a singer? Or a sports personality? (You acknowledge the possibility of this in your first sentence.) Or a TV personality? If they still had an interest in running for office, they could do so using their "fame" that was gained in whatever way it was gained. It's not "astronaut-hood" that makes the person well-known enough to be a successful politician—it's just being well-known and "in the news"—name recognition, essentially. Does Al Franken demonstrate that there is a link between being a comedian and being a politician? Hardly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 11 August 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.

Category:Theatre schools and training organizations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Theatre schools and training organizations to Category:Drama schools

Nominator's rationale: This category just creates confusion and hence resultant over categorisation. We have no article for Theatre schools, but we do have one for Drama schools. There is no legal definition of a drama school, hence all educational drama and theatre establishments - as long as they pass WP:Notability - can included, and hence up-merged to the Drama Schools category. Rgds, Trident13 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – these are the same thing and should be merged. Some of the subcats need similar renaming and/or merging unless 'drama school' is a country-specific phrase. Occuli (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge to match parent article at Drama school. Alansohn (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to avoid duplication. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 2 August 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.

Destroyers by navy

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) 21:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming:

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with common naming style employed by the other 6 subcategories of Category:Destroyers by navy. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match other corresponding categories in parent. Alansohn (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:08, 2 August 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.

Cruisers by navy

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) 21:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming:

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with common naming style employed by the other 12 subcategories of Category:Cruisers by navy. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match other corresponding categories in parent. Alansohn (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another category I just found, Category:Royal Netherlands Navy cruisers, to the discussion. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:08, 2 August 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.

Category:Unofficial sequels

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This page has bee underpopulated for quite some time, despite a request to improve cat being added back in 2007. Either it needs to be fleshed out, or should be deleted as a largely redundant category. magnius (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't see any problem with the size of the category. I do see a problem with the inclusion criteria. Upmerge to Category:Sequels or find more succinct critieria. Occuli (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I asked on the Talk page: "How is this category not original research?" Note that, because of the subjectivity of its definition, not everything in this category is really a sequel. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - as per Occuli. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - Category created by me after a CFD back in 2007, but I have no attachment. If the material is already redundant to Category:Sequels then delete. Syrthiss (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. It is not difficult to populate as it covers different media and has a wide scope. It may be possible to limit the criteria in some way but it does represent a variety of unofficial works that relate to previous works in a unconventional way so they are more than just staightforward sequels. Cjc13 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the parent article Spiritual successor does offer a list of such films, each supported by explanations and references, it's still too subjective to function as a category and would work better as a expanded list, I think. Our categories for parodies and fan films do a good job of categorizing the more straightforward groupings, already. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fan films are now included as a single subcategory. Not all parodies relate to a specific work, so only a few relevant parodies are included. The category includes video games and books, not just films. At present there is no other similar grouping for the video games to go into. Because of the use of the term spiritual successor in relation to video games, it would seem reasonable to have at least a category for them. Cjc13 (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category title is subjective. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article for each entry explains the reasons for its inclusion in the category. Only those clearly identified as relating to a previous work but not being an oficial sequel have been included in the category. The term "spiritual successor" is widely used in Wikipedia. Cjc13 (talk) 18:27, 28 July 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.

Category:Avant-progressive rock

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. Anyone have a pill for my headache which is getting progressively worst? Anyway, consensus is that since the article was deleted, this is not a valid genre. Outright deletion does not seem at all correct. So an upmerge to the parents seems to be the only choice and is among the options presented in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Parent article on a non-existant genre was recently deleted. Thus the categories should go as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Progressive rock and Category:Progressive rock albums respectively. Occuli (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Category:Avant-progressive rock albums to Category:Experimental rock albums which seems a reasonable and specific home fitting the main Experimental rock article. AllyD (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the same thing, so it would be ill-advised to do so. Upmerging to the progressive rock albums category makes more sense, if anything. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albums by Faust and Henry Cow appear in Category:Avant-progressive rock albums and the same bands are discussed in Experimental_rock#1970s. See also Chris Cutler's book "File Under Popular": p120 notates a decline from "a flowering of experimental music" into a mainstream progressive music that "was so much froth". AllyD (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The albums also appear in the progressive rock category. This is why I think it's best to just outright delete the categories, because then we can sort everything out properly later. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with AllyD: Avant-progressive rock is closer to Experimental rock than Progressive rock. See my vote below. --Bruce1ee^talk 06:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avant-progressive rock isn't a real genre (hence its deletion and this CFD), so it's not close to anything. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Avant-progressive rock to Category:Experimental rock for consistency with my argument on the albums above. AllyD (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming would a bad idea, since the parent article was deleted for a very valid reason. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Avant-progressive rock to Category:Experimental rock; Upmerge Category:Avant-progressive rock albums to Category:Experimental rock albums. Experimental rock is a closer match than Progressive rock. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:Experimental music. I have no objection to these alternatives, having no basis for any views on 'Experimental rock' versus 'Progressive rock'. Occuli (talk) 11:40, 27 July 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.

Category:Executed rapists

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: Deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard , now WP:SALTed (Non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Executed rapists to Category:People executed for rape

Nominator's rationale: duplicate category, just added and not populated yet, but a plausible search term, thus I'm advocating merger rather than deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – or possibly make it into a category redirect, but it doesn't seem necessary to me. Occuli (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As it is empty, there is nothing to merge. Category redirects have to be checked regularly for having had additions made, and are this undesirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are checked every few days by bot, and contents moved automatically. I have seen it happen. Occuli (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unneeded duplicate. Alansohn (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't break my heart if it were deleted either. I didn't know all that about cat redirects. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 26 July 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.