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: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William 22:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator and policy. Not much else to say. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2014 (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: These two dab page categories duplicate talk page (editor-side) project categories (this and this). All the dab pages in these categories are now in the corresponding project category. These reader-side dab categories are an unnecessary complication - I'm not sure that we really need any by-topic categorization of dab pages; we certainly don't need two such (incomplete, overlapping) categorization schemes. This type of category (added manually to dab pages) is also discouraged by the parent category (CAT:DABP#Notes). For info: an example of a previous CFD for a disambiguation page category is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_19#Category:Bridge_disambiguation_pages. DexDor (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yea, the dab guideline clearly discourages these and this is probably a good example of why. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2014 (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: not sure why this is needed with existing category "Films based on works by Australian writers"; currently means that many novels are de facto miscategorized under the broader category Doprendek (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2014 (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: - Per established precedent that 0-level categories are not helpful to the encyclopedia, see here. VegaDark (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We don't usually categorise articles by the lack of an attribute, and I see no reason to do so for users. If fully implemented, this scheme would cause massive category clutter: there are probably several hundred languages I don't speak, and it is very rare for any individual to have more than 10 languages. It would also create a horrible precedent, for Category:Wikipedians who don't live in Wherever, Category:Wikipedians without a PhD, etc. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 15 March 2014 (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: We don't have a broader poets-by-state division - if we're to split the parent we should use the by-century subcats instead. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is another division by state we do not need. People move too much between state for such divisions to work. Consider how many categories we would need to put someone like Eliza R. Snow in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because its the first is not a reason (otherwise we would not have categories), which is actually what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also covers. As above, we do this for most cats. Honestly, is a 3200 cat better for linking people together by a characteristic, as that is what the American poets cat is at? I personally find such huge categories unwieldy and prime candidates for dispersion to make them useful. Yes, some people will be in multiple, so what? Again, we do that often. In most instances, the actually helps reduce the number of cats, since as it is now a person would be in Writer from STATE and American poet, whereby moving them into this subcat combines the two (and please don't make an argument about not all poets being writers, as the American poets cat is already in the writers tree). Aboutmovies (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- about 12 articles (including those in the subcategory is enough for a useful category. Split the rest of those in the target. I also consider enormous categories not to be an aid to navigation, rahter a hindrance. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not part of a by-state scheme. Why have one for Oregon but not for other states? To find specific American poets via a category, one should not have to know what state some Wikipedia editor decided to say they were "from". Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. How do we determine how to slot a person into this category when their article shows them being from several places? Do we have any evidence that someone from Oregon has something unique that influences their writing style or their poetry? Do we really need to carry these from state or from anything to every category tree? So what purpose does this category serve what can not be obtained by searching "category:poets" +"category:people from Oregon"? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you search that way there are a variety of problems: 1) poets are part of the writers tree, so they should not be in the people cat; 2) apparently you want to ignore the fact that we already try to diffuse the "people from Oregon" cat into county/city specific sub cats, thus you would have to search a whole lot more than that single search string. As to the rest of the argument, for the upteenth time, we do this sort of thing for occupations all the time, and there is rarely a connection of a specific style associated with a state subcat. As to Good Olfactory, sorry, but otherstuffdoesn't exist is also an invalid argument, as all one needs to do then is go out and create the other subcats, and that does not seem like a proper way to judge whether or not we should have a cat. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an "invalid argument". You may disagree with the strength of the argument and may not be convinced by it, but your opinion doesn't make it invalid. It's valid because this is not part of an overall scheme, and oftentimes the presence or absence of an overall scheme is a factor to be considered when deciding the fate of an individual category. Also, my other comments indicate that I don't think someone should go out and create categories for all the other states of the U.S., so the method by which you "invalidated" my argument is weak. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:OSE clearly states in the second sentence, when used improperly the argument is in fact invalid. I understand that we often keep when there is a larger scheme, but that is a reason to keep and no where is that ever listed as a reason to delete. That argument is listed at WP:SMALLCAT. The reason that is a a reason to keep and not delete is explained above because we can simply go make the scheme exist. Thus, that is why your argument is invalid as to the OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST. As to your only other argument, it falls on its face. Apparently you have no problem categorizing poets by nationality (or even by subdivisions that are not nations), which also then requires the reader to know which nationality someone is from in order to find them, which can be tricky with changing national borders over the passage of centuries. Not to mention, we do this for a wide variety of occupations. Not to mention, you already have to figure out which subcat by genre the poet is in, since American poets has several genre subcats to go along with a variety of other common splits by race/ethnicity/gender. Lastly, if you really think about it, and I doubt you will, this actually is part of a larger scheme - division by state/occupation. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm using the argument in the way that you seem to think I am. I'm certainly not using it in the way that WP:OSE describes as being "invalid". There is more nuance to what I (and others) have said above than just a bare assertion of "OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST", and I would appreciate it if you stopped characterizing it that way. And I believe that there is a much greater difference between categorizing by nationality and categorizing by U.S. state than you suggest. (And "Scottish" is a nationality and "Scotland" is a country, BTW.) Regarding your final sentence—there is no need to be snarky or rude; there are indeed multiple category trees involved with most categories. I'm personally not a big fan of dividing people by U.S. state and occupation—I think it hinders rather than enhances overall navigation and the ability to find articles through categories—which is why I'm not convinced by the need to retain this branch of the tree you mention. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:56, 27 March 2014 (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:speedy merge; these were missed in the "by country" clean up that came with the previous close. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:15, 9 March 2014 (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:Asia-Pacific Association for International Education[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.
Nominator's rationale: That a university/college is (currently) a member of an association is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of the university/college. This sort of thing would be more appropriate as a list in an article about the association (with dates etc) than in a category (if it is necessary at all in Wikipedia as in most/all cases we can link to an official website containing a list). Note: It would be much better to create any such list from a RS (e.g. the association's website), rather than from the current content of this category; so listifying the category is unnecessary. For info: A previous CFD for such a category is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_16#Category:1994_Group. DexDor (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listify thgen delete -- This is dealing with assocation members. WE have no main article on the association and a list article giving its members would make a useful one. Being a member of an association is rather too like a performacne category for my liking. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2014 (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: Scope poorly defined, could include tens of thousands. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My main concern is "targeted" usually refers to attempts to kill, but many of these people were only investigated by the FBI.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Is this an ATTACK category? If it is people investigated by FBI, but not charged or convicted, we really ought not to have it. CRime categories are normally limited to people convicted of crime. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2014 (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.
