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.
Merge per everybody. While I'd actually prefer to kill Category:Upcoming films altogether, due to its transitory "constantly in flux" nature which necessitates constant maintenance, I doubt there's a consensus for that and at the very least there's no value in subdividing it by nationality. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:MERGE to Category:People killed in the Bangladesh Liberation War. This is marginal tending to delete, but does not quite have the convergence of opinion that looks like a rough consensus - however, there is agreement that the category should not remain as it is, and a good target has been identified that seems like the real meaning of the category anyway. -Splash - tk22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post closure note: Actually, all 6 articles in the nominated category were already in the merge target, so this actually amounted to a straight delete in effect (only). Splash - tk22:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have a category for "Bengali intellectuals" (that this could be a child of) and we don't normally (AFAIK) categorize by the combination of nationality, occupation and year-of-death. The two articles currently in this category are in plenty of other categories including Category:1971 deaths. DexDor (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2013 (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:Pornographic film actors of Spanish ethnicity
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.
Delete This is way too specific. However, like French and Italian, Spanish can actually be used to designate an ethnicity. Hispanic may originally have been seen as the ethnic designation, but there are people describe as "Hispanic" who have no real connection to being ethnically Spanish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2013 (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.
Delete - an animal species is not defined by whether or not someone kept a particular representative of the animal as a pet. Potentially any non-extinct animal could be kept as a pet by someone. Individual pet animals should be categorized under Category:Individual animals and its sub-categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Animal species most definitely can be classified according to whether they are commonly kept as pets, as evidenced by abundant sources covering the keeping of certain species (or of more general taxonomic groups) but not others. The categorization is both useful to readers and also clear-cut enough to be supportable by reliable sources. For this category alone there are entire books dedicated to, say, snail care for home aquarists. That "potentially any non-extinct animal could be kept as a pet" is a specious argument, as that's not what this and other pet categories are intended for. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me it appears that this and its sibling categories are intended to capture any animal that can be or has been kept as a pet. That is borne out by the contents of this category. Why, what do you think they're intended for?
delete we should also delete the other pet categories - which sources are used to determine 'commonly kept as pets'? Are we talking about now, in America, or are we talking about what pets Sumerian kings would keep? Better to turn these into lists, as being-kept-as-a-pet is not defining of snails or octopi. We could keep topic cats like dogs-as-pets but linking individual species here is a bad idea, so I would support clearing the other ones too. Amongst Las Vegas magicians, white tigers are common pets but I don't think this is defining of the white tiger as species. A list could better capture volume on a per country basis of pet-keeping which would allow us to see relative levels of pet-osity for different species - but as a category it's too subjective.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not conceptually against a domesticated animal cat and ones commonly kept as pets might qualify. But these animals are rarely kept as pets and Giant African Snail should not be kept as one. Just because some fool puts a walrus in their pool... RevelationDirect (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Whether capitve octopoi, snails, etc are pets is debatable anyway. However this is categoirising species, not specifically pets. Possibly it might be listified as molluscs that can be kept as pets, but do we really need that? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2013 (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.
Delete per nom. Note: If a person was made famous by their death then (per WP:BLP1EWP:ONEEVENT) we shouldn't have an article about the person, but we might have an article about the event of their death (e.g. a murder). DexDor (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC) corrected. DexDor (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While we do indeed have some articles about people whose death happened to be the thing that made them notable enough to have an article (think Matthew Shepard and Mary Jo Kopechne), that fact in and of itself is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic that warrants categorization as such — and as noted, we avoid subjective terminology like "famous". Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The dedicated fans of The West Wing have made a West Wings stub category unnecessary. There have not been more than a handful of stubs for this category for a considerable amount of time. Keep and upmerge template, and delete category. Dawynn (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2013 (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.
Merge all -- At differnet stages in a career, players are likely to play in different leagues. Also the presnet league is a merger of two others in 2013, so that the definitions exclude players who retired before 2013. We do not generally allow a current/past split. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2013 (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.
Merge all -- At differnet stages in a career, men are likely to manage in different leagues. Also the presnet league is a merger of two others in 2013, so that the definitions exclude managers who retired before 2013. We do not generally allow a current/past split. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. It seems these albums should all be under the Cat Stevens category since they are the same person and that category matches the title of the main article. A category redirect would be appropriate, however. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me10:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the albums are by the same artist, the Cat Stevens albums are predominantly Pop or Rock albums, whereas the Yusuf Islam albums are Islamic music albums. His change of music is synonymous with his change of name after his conversion to Islam. I think a combination of these points deduce a notable and defining characteristic. It is useful to have separate categories as the category Category:Islamic music albums only applies to a third of the subject's albums. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is a special case but the shift in name + different style of music makes this worthwhile. For clarity we may consider renaming both if these to 'Albums recorded as Yusuf Islam' and 'Albums recorded as Cat Stevens' or something similar.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded genderizing category; no demonstration that women have a special relationship with outer space that is different than the relationship men have with space. We already have a Category:Female astronauts category, but this one as a parent isn't needed unless we're willing to create Category:Men in space as well. Women are humans, and Category:Human spaceflight is a perfectly reasonable place for any articles we have here. All existing articles are categorized elsewhere, so no need to merge. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a rather clear and defining common characteristic that exists at this point in terms of women in space, as exemplified by the coverage in Mothers in space of gestational issues in space. As usual, nothing in Wikipedia is needed and arguments of the "isn't needed" sort demonstrate a lack of any legitimate policy based justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2013 (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.
