Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 3 May 5 >

May 4[edit]

Category:Rectors of Northern Cyprus[edit]

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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent is Category:Turkish Cypriot people. Not sufficient rectors to justify their own category. Rathfelder (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the single article refers to someone who was once the rector of a college in N Cyprus. Oculi (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname -- Rector appears here to mean the head of the university. In England, he would be Vice-Chancellor; elsewhere Chancellor or President. I suggest the neutral Category:Heads of universities in Northern Cyprus. It should be possible to populate it. The one person was replaced in 2010 and then became a Rector in Istambul. His successor may not have an article yet, but probably should and there appear to be several more universities in the same unrecognised polity. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename in some manner. Scope and size issues aside, "Rector of Northern Cyprus" sounds like an Anglican priest (not particularly sensible in Northern Cyprus) or a government position. Use "university rectors..." if the category remains. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Big House Companies[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT and no article on this record label/publisher (deleted per this AfD). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Collaborators during World War II occupations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary container category. Can be easily merged into parent category. Renata (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:State highways in Michigan serving parks[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Serving a park, state or national, isn't a defining characteristic of a state highway in Michigan. A related list article was just deleted through AfD. Imzadi 1979 → 14:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it's true that the articles here are about short stub routes which exist primarily to provide a road from the mainline highway to a park rather than as mainline highways in their own right, that's not a defining characteristic of the routes per se. Utah has a list, on the grounds that most of its equivalent highways are too small and unsourceable to have their own standalone articles at all, so the list serves as a way to combine the information about them in one place and redirect the titles to it — and even there, the redirects are not (and should not be) subcategorized as their own special class of park-serving highways, but are just categorized directly alongside trunkline routes in Category:State highways in Utah and/or a county-based subcategory. So there's no reason why the Michigan equivalents need special treatment in the category tree, different from how the Utah versions are handled. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Silent Sentinels[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorizion. This was a group of suffragist women who participated in a 2-year-long protest, which ended with passage of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. We really can't start down the road of categorizing by protest -- that's another level beyond categorizing by membership in a group. A List Section could be added to the main article if that is deemed appropriate. Anomalous+0 (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore: The Silent Sentinels protest was sponsored by the National Woman's Party, which has its own category, including a subcat for National Woman's Party activists -- which is one of the parents for this category. And 10 of the 26 individuals listed here are also listed in that parent category. Anomalous+0 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Categories by year[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:C2C as follow-up on this earlier discussion. The categories above are child and grandchild categories of the categories in the earlier discussion. This could probably have been speedied, I am proposing this at full CfD after all just because of the large number of categories involved (about 250). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - could indeed be speedied. Oculi (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Better formation, allowing people to search the topics alphabetically. Dimadick (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I just checked the history of Category:Sumo by year and it appears that was the format used until it was changed in 2010. No objection to returning to that.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Categories by country and year[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, kind of WP:C2C as follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous cfd and standard naming. Oculi (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Better formation. Dimadick (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I also support this as it sounds a bit better than what we currently have. Matt294069 (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anti-Islam[edit]

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. MER-C 10:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 3#Category:Anti-Christian sentiment, there was a suggestion to move Anti-X categories to use the format "Anti-X sentiment". feminist (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this goes against the title of the main article. The category in the quoted discussion is the odd outlier. Compare Category:Anti-Judaism, Category:Anti-Hinduism, Category:anti-Buddhism Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but I think you need to nominate all the Anti-XXX cats (Anti-Islam is a dab page). The previous cfd supports renaming all to add sentiment. Oculi (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearer scope. Though I am uncertain whether the main topic is sentiment against Islam as a religion, or prejudice against Muslims as a religious group. Dimadick (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sentiment? That would reduce all criticism to subjectivism. There are philosophical critics of Islam who, on a factual basis, reject it as they do all religions--because they reject the supernatural. To reject it in fact should be distinguished from a normative criticism directed to the morality or practice of the religion. This should be distinguished from bigotry against the practitioners, which in the extreme could consist of persecution. Lumping this all as sentiment is absurd. We shouldn't have created the category anti-Christian sentiment in isolation as all the other categories are anti-X when talking about the most general category. At the minimum we should be having a broader discussion on category organization. Perhaps there was one and I missed it. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support or at least I am inclined to do so. I think this used to be Islamophobia, which ought to mean "fear of Islam", which is too strong. Critics/criticism of Islam would also be possible. However, that may be too weak as (at its strongest) this is about persecution, which can be violent. In saying this I am partly thinking of the equivalent for Christianity. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish critics of Islam[edit]

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: purge of cases for whom criticism of Islam is not WP:DEFINING, after which a further discussion may be appropriate.
Note: Some of the participants opting for "delete" did not explain whether they meant "merge and delete" or "delete without merging" (N.B. the "delete" process does the latter), and did not give a rationale for not merging, even though that would mostly de-populate Category:Critics of Islam. This lack of clarity is part of the reason that I find no consensus for deletion. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Setting up religious critics of x religion raises too many issues about sources, BLP etc for me. I see the same editor created Category:Former Muslim critics of Islam , Category:Christian critics of Islam. Category:Hindu critics of Islam. Category:Jewish critics of Islam and Category:Buddhist critics of Islam. I haven't done an exhaustive check but I'm not finding categories for Christian critics of.. or Islamic/Muslim critics of... Doug Weller talk 09:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the Category:Critics of Islam is currently too large, overly broad and difficult to navigate otherwise, justifying the existence of sub-categories dealing with critics of Islam from various different perspectives. It doesn't make much sense, for example, to have John of Damascus (a Christian), Richard Dawkins (a Secularist) and Bal Thackeray (a Hindu ultra-nationalist) all lumped together in one category, as they cite completely different reasons for their criticisms. So disambiguation is more useful for the reader and makes sense. Ishbiliyya (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This division does not make particular sense to me. The overlaps between these groups in this matter far exceed their differences, and the categories themselves will inevitably attract WP:BLP violations: witness this sample of erroneous additions by the category creator: [1][2][3][4] Category:Critics of Christianity, Category:Critics of Judaism etc. aren't divided this way. In fact, like Doug Weller, I can't find any other categories like these. Jayjg (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 350 articles in the Critics of Islam category and only 16 in the Critics of Judaism category, while the latter could indeed be brought inline with this approach (I'm not opposed to that), there are probably not enough articles in it for it to be as useful. Ishbiliyya (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all There are many basis to categorize critics of Islam but they all have problems. In the case of Jewish critics, the demographic group includes both religious and secular critics. The same is true for former Muslims, some who are critical from a religious perspective and others from a secular perspective. There are critics within Islam by sect, etc. I don't see the categories helpful to navigate the critics. We have articles on criticism of Islam and a category for the criticism. This seems sufficient. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: these are valid subdivisions of the category:Critics of Islam. Especially the Category:Former Muslim critics of Islam (which might require a rephrasing just for clarity, perhaps 'Former Muslims who criticise Islam'? Otherwise it suggests that these people criticised Islam back in the day when they were still Muslims themselves, but not necessarily after leaving Islam) has merit. Their lines of argument are often rather different from e.g. Christian critics of Islam, who often frame this debate in terms of 'Christian countries versus Islamic countries' and the need for immigration to from the latter to the former to stop and close the borders, whereas most ex-Muslims (many of whom are themselves migrants/refugees from Muslim-majority countries to (formerly) Christian-majority countries) regard this as unacceptable xenophobia, generalisations and a lack of humanitarianism. The kind of criticism you get from former members of a religion, who experienced it themselves, will always provide a different perspective than the criticism from outsiders. I think this is a useful distinction that Wikipedia should make. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the keep !votes of Ishbiliyya and Nederlandse Leeuw highlight the different reasons why individuals or movements might be critics of Islam, whether it for dogmatic, social, economic, cultural reasons etc. However at the same time I cannot support the keeping of these categories, namely because for many individuals their religious/spiritual/ideological positions are often private and/or do not neatly fit into one category, for example a former Muslim could be secular/irreligious such as Afshin Ellian or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or could belong to another religion such as Nabeel Qureshi (author) or Ali Sina (activist). In these articles it would take two seperate categories to describe the same thing that one category did adequately. Also I am a bit hesitant over the "X critics of Y", as if for example the fact that an indidual is Hindu/Buddhist/Christian/Sikh etc. inavertly make it seem that their criticism is more/less valid than an irreligious/atheist/agnostic/secular individual? Lastley Islam like all religions and ideologies is far from homogeneous, there are a variety of movements and denominations within Islam, some of which are critics of each other. For example Ulil Abshar Abdalla often criticizes conservatic Muslim stances in Indonesia, and many conservative Muslims criticize him, so are they Category:Muslim critics of Islam? I just see a can of worms being opened here that will lead to edit wars, sorry for the block of text Inter&anthro (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - after reviewing some of the articles in these categories, I have come to the conclusion that deletion and merging into the previous category is the best option. The principle reason is that these categories encourage speculation and WP:OR, for example what reason is there to label Kristian Thulesen Dahl, Tim Ablitt, Tommy Robinson (activist), etc. as "secular" critics. Nederlandse Leeuw's above !vote that religious criticism of Islam always has a cultural or dogmatic foundation and secular criticism of Islam always has a rational or scientific foundation is a hasty generalization which is often incorrect: Geert Wilders, Nyamko Sabuni, Miloš Zeman are all irreligious and their noted opposition to Islam has more to do with culture and ethnicity rather than science. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Critics of Islam, this type of categorization easily becomes too subjective. Many critics in this tree are Europeans and Americans and it is often unclear whether they should be classified as Christian or secular. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - I find the arguments in favor of keeping these categories far more persuasive than those favoring deletion.
  • Keep all -- Most of these are well populated, so that merging them would create a category too large to aid navigation. I would Category:Ex-Muslim critics of Islam. I suspect that Muslim critics of Islam (if we had such category) would be better dealt with in another way. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all There are too many issues with defining religion, especially who is actually a "former Muslim" for these categories to work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all without upmerge. Looking at a few articles, this seems to be a random gathering of any rant without any connection to actual criticism of Islam as a religion. This one dislikes the building of a mosque in Cologne because he thinks Muslims don't integrate well (that's criticism of the integration of Muslims, not the religion); this European commissioner wrote a book called Islam & Democracy with a co-author called Mohammed, book of which nothing is said in the article and certainly not that it qualifies as "criticism" or "secular criticism"; this one is a leader of the nationalists and anti-Rohingya movement in Burma, but the article says nothing about his thoughts on religion. Place Clichy (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There hasn't been a reply on how we should classify the majority of European and American critics in this category tree - how are we going to distinguish Christian from secular? Are we supposed to (subjectively) judge the argumentation of the critic as a Christian argumentation or a secular argumentation? Or should we only classify people as a critic from a religion if they clearly represent a religious organization? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Should there be any kind of problems with individual entries in respective categories, these ought to be dealt with on a case by case basis. This is not a reason against the categories per se. PPEMES (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is as systematic problem here as speculation is rampant in these categories, as articles are often based more on assumption than actuall proof a lot of the time. A case-by-case overview might not be enough. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge. As noted above, some of these articles cover individuals who are not critics of Islam per se. With all of these purged of shouldn't-be-included articles, we might be down to a size small enough to merge. As far as Marcocapelle's concern: what's the basis of the criticism? One can argue that Islam is wrong because its concept of Jesus contradicts the Bible (Christian), or because it sets Muhammad above the biblical prophets and leaves no room for the true coming Messiah (Jewish), or because it's dependent on revelation from a god when we all know there is no such thing as the supernatural (secular). My main concern is criticism from individuals who have themselves changed (e.g. if a secular critic became a Christian) and criticism from former Muslims, who normally will have become Jews, Christians, or atheists, and thus are likely to fit into two categories. So overall, I'd prefer to merge, but instead of advocating that, I'd prefer to see the actual number of appropriate articles before doing anything else. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all It is a good point that otherwise Category:Critics of Islam would be large and difficult to navigate, so the sub-categories, based on the different perspectives, are useful. John of Damascus, Richard Dawkins, and Bal Thackeray have so little in common that they may agree on nothing except disapproval of Islam. If there is a problem here, it does not come from the existence of the categories, but from careless use of them, which someone could sort out with a little effort. On a point of detail, I see little problem in deciding whether someone is a Christian critic or a secular critic of Islam: the criticism speaks for itself and will be either about harm to Christianity or harm to secular society. It is unlikely to be about both, but if it is then one will surely predominate over the other. Moonraker (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Douglas Murray and Geert Wilders are atheist/agnostics whose opposition to Islam has more to do with preserving what they call the "Christian heritage of Europe". They are not alone, as this sense of heritage being protected is quite similar among many critics of Islam, (and criticism of other religions as well, see Anti-Catholicism in the United States) that provides examples that your argument is not as clear cut as your !vote would make it appear. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, it is very difficult to distinguish secular from Christian criticism, that is what I tried to get across earlier on as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why are we dividing up critics of Islam by religion? This hardly seems like the most sensible way to divide up this category. Why not by nationality of the critic or their occupation (professor? politician? journalist?). I don't think the current division makes sense and it should also be noted that Ishbiliyya was blocked weeks ago. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and Purge (in either order). Remove from these categories those articles that don't mention the subject's faith (e.g. Tim Ablitt) or for which "critic of Islam" is inappropriate categorization (and possibly also those articles in which these 2 facts are not directly connected) - then the remainder don't need this subcategorization. DexDor (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Motorsports Hall of Fame of America inductees[edit]

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.
As for the discussion at the end: WP:NMOTORSPORT "Motorsport figures are presumed notable if they: Have been enshrined in any notable motorsports hall of fame." This shows that halls of fame may be useful evidence of notability of a person. However, that does not make the HoF induction WP:DEFINING for all such persons; in most cases it will merely be confirmation of notability that was already established for the person. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Motorsports Hall of Fame of America is a museum currently located next to the Daytona Speedway. The biography articles in this category do tend to mention the award but in passing with a list of other awards so it doesn't seem defining. The recipients are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. - MrX 🖋 21:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I thought we allowed such categories where there is a real museum. I recall being jumped upon some years ago for suggesting the reverse. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: I certainly never made that case. I think that museums with a physical presence are definitely more WP:Notable as far as the main article goes if there were to be an AfD nomination. Whether or not the award is WP:Defining for a category in CfD is a separate question better determined by seeing how the individual biography articles handle the award in my opinion. In this case, having a major racetrack next door creates a enough customers to support a museum but that's also the case with this overlapping category at a similar musem by the Talladega raceway but the race driver articles only mention both awards in passing. We also have a lot of Halls of Fames that are barely physical museums: the American Theater Hall of Fame has plaques on the walls in the upstairs portico/hallway area of the Gershwin Theatre. As these award categories have proliferated, I also suspect the consensus here in CFD may be moving toward a more strict application of WP:OCAWARD. (Sorry for giving *long* reply to a short question!) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I have been tending to support the removal of these under OCAWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an important recognition in the motor sport/car industry. WP:Not paper. Its existence helps users navigate related articles. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List articles and categories can exist together, it is never acceptable to delete one simply because you prefer the other. Is this not the most notable award in that industry? All of these articles do mention they were inducted into it. Dream Focus 02:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion is NONDEFINING not that a list exists. Your last sentence is incorrect (e.g. for Nigel Mansell). DexDor (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The three "keep" !votes above have no foundation in applicable policy or guideline, and should be disregarded by the closer.
  1. @7&6=thirteen cites WP:Not paper, which notes "an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars". Those content policies include the long-standing guidance that categories must be based on WP:DEFINING attributes, and per WP:OCAWARD that awards are vere=y rarely a DEFINING attribute.
  2. @7&6=thirteen point that a category existence helps users navigate related articles is true of any non-empty category, no matter how trivial or otherwise flawed the category is. That comment simply describes how a category works; it is of no relevance to a decision about which categories should be kept.
  3. @Dream Focus and @Lubbad85 address a classic straw man. The nominator's rationale does not say "delete because there is a list"; it says delete because the category fails both WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEFINING. The long-established guidance at WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates is very clear that just as the existence of a list is no reason to delete a category, it is also no reason to keep a category:
"there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia. For instance, the guideline on overcategorization sets out a number of situations in which consensus has consistently determined that categories should not be used. A regularly occurring outcome at WP:CFD for some deleted categories is to listify, because there are cases where lists are appropriate while categories may not be (e.g. List of unusual units of measurement exists as a list, but not as a category Category:Unusual units of measurement)."
This is one of those discussions where WP:NOTVOTE is very inportant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator mentioned the information was already "listified" in his deletion rational. So that's why I commented on that as well as the fact that this is a notable award in the field. There aren't that many other awards for this are there? This is a good category for people to find all the most notable people in this sport with. I don't think these people have too many categories in their articles so overcategorization is not a problem. Dream Focus 15:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus, the test is not how many awards there are in that field. The test is whether this one is WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to start a conversation at the WikiProject after this nomination to understand which of the 6 subcategories under Category:Auto racing museums and halls of fame are really WP:DEFINING? Specifically, this Hall of Fame by the Talledega Speedway is a nearly identical museum, with a nearly identical description for who gets inducted, and with a lot of overlap in the articles like Dan Gurney. \ RevelationDirect (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the defining characteristic of the people in this category is that they were e.g. racing drivers, not that they are a Hall of Fame inductee. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior Deletion in CFD Just came across this prior deletion in CFD under a slightly different name: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 15#Category:Motorsports Hall of Fame of America. Not sure if WP:G4 still applies though since I started this new discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You can overlook the proposer's statement about the biography articles mentioning the award in passing in a list of other awards so it doesn't seem defining. According to the notability guidelines, see WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." And "...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Additionally, Motorsports halls of fame are mentioned in WP:NMOTORSPORT "Motorsport figures are presumed notable if they: Have been enshrined in any notable motorsports hall of fame." I think this hall of fame qualifies and believe that a hall of fame that makes its inductees worthy of an article is more defining. Thus, the inductees are notable whether they are in an article, a list, or a category. Lastly, as stated above, lists and categories complement each other. See WP:CLNT "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." dawnleelynn(talk) 03:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: I am not nominating any Hall of Fame articles or any biography articles for deletion in AfD for being non-notable.
- Categories get nominated to CfD and need to be WP:DEFINING
- Articles get nominated to AfD and need to be WP:NOTABLE - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks you for your clarifications above and allow me to add one of my own: I did not mean to imply that the existence of a list article was ever a reason to delete a category only that, if this category was deleted, the contents of this category would still be available to readers interested in the hall of fame. My wording could have been clearer. The WP:CLN guideline cuts both ways: categories should not seen as non-defining because a list exists but the existence of a list provides no protection from deleting a non-defining category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NONDEFINING and WP:DNWAUC. DexDor (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RevelationDirect Per our discussion on my talkpage, I now understand that you are not arguing that when an article has a list, the category needs to be deleted. We have also come to an understanding about the mistaken notability policies, which I have struck out. I only left the bit about the category being more defining when the hall of fame is in a subject-specific notability guideline and makes it inductees notable. Also, it may be possible that the category is appropriate to be mentioned in the lead of the hall of fame article, which would make it defining. WP:DEFINING Just a thought. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you the good discussion and thanks for the clarifications. I appreciate the friendly disagreement. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RevelationDirect This CfD has been stagnant for almost two months. I'd like to point out something and see if it is a relevant argument here. Since this hall of fame can be used to establish the notability of subjects, as I pointed out earlier, there is something in WP:DEFINING that applies that has not been discussed. "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics...this includes...the reason for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for." But what remains unclear to me, is if this applies to this hall of fame. First of all, it has been said that most, if not all, of the articles mention the hall so this taken care of. But, many articles also mention many other halls of fame, thus how can we say which hall is establishing their notability or are all of them? Thoughts? I expect you may have insights I don't having done this longer. We really should try to come to a consensus on on this case, regardless, in a friendly manner naturally. dawnleelynn(talk) 14:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a relevant argument. People in this category are notable because they are famous in motor sports, not because they are in a hall of fame. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rock single stubs[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following the merger of the by-decade rock single stub categories, the same can now be done for this (I should have included this in the original nomination). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:MSNBC program hosts[edit]

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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't find it necessary to have two categories with MSNBC associated people. Most people in the "MSNBC people" category are current or former hosts/analysts. Merging these people in with the above category should be appropriate. Tinton5 (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:ASEMUS museums[edit]

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. MER-C 10:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC
The Asia-Europe Museum Network is an interesting musuem assocation that promotes cross-cultural exhibits and visits between Europe and Asia and it is composed of major institutions like the British Museum and Asian Civilisations Museum. Not a single one of the current articles even mentions the organization so it doesn't seem defining. There was no list so I created one here so no information is lost. (Alternatively, if kept, rename to Category:Asia-Europe Museum Network member institutions to match the main article.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- possibly listify in main article. We had a similar series of deletions some time back for associuations of universities memberships. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Muisca art museums[edit]

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: selectively upmerge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C1, an unpopulated category and WP:SMALLCAT
The Muisca Confederation was a prominent pre-Columbian culture in the Andean highlands of centeral Colombia. I have no conceptual objection to this category but we currently don't have any articles about Muisca art museums. What we do have is 2 Muisca archaeology museums (which include some art) and various general museums that have some Muisca artifacts according to this list article. None of the other museum articles event mention Muisca artifacts except for a passing reference in the Gold Museum article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_4&oldid=905834662"