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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles of the year ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I can understand categorizing songs that ranked at #1 on a Billboard Year-End chart, but at the same time, there doesn't seem to be a precedent for such categories existing. This is more of a "test the waters" CFD than anything else, as I'm kind of on the fence about this one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Well I just thought that songs that were #1's of the year deserved to be categorized. We have a category for United States Billboard Hot Country Songs #1's, RPM Country Tracks and Canadian Country Singles #1's, so why not have a similiar category for the number-one songs of the year? Ryanbstevens ( talk) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Like I said, I'm not very strongly for the deletion of this category. I'm just unsure if we need one since no other Number One songs of the year are similarly categorized. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 01:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Dinamo Zagreb to Category:NK Dinamo Zagreb

Propose renaming Category:Dinamo Zagreb players to Category:NK Dinamo Zagreb players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is prior consensus at WP:FOOTY that club categories should be named after the club article. – Pee Jay 22:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. I was thinking of proposing a renaming myself but I couldn't find out whether there was a prior consensus about this. Thanks for helping out. Timbouctou ( talk) 05:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – Pee Jay 00:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename to match with parent article. -- Jimbo ^[online] 23:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Any articles that belong in Cat:Virtue can be boldly moved there. Kbdank71 14:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Virtues ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Similar to the Category:Vice which was deleted here, this category is mostly subjectivity, original research, and POV. Consider some of the choices Curiosity, Discipline, Independence, Imagination, Rigour - are these universally virtuous? Detachment and Empathy (or Sympathy, also there) which are close to opposites are both in the category. Same with Openness and Discretion. Eccentricity (behavior) is also there. Perhaps considered virtuous by some (like criminal defense attorneys with insanity pleas in their pockets), but this is not a universal. Misanthropy is also so classified, probably with someone's tongue firmly in cheek. Anyway, there is no OBJECTIVE way to define virtue as one person's virtue leaves others feeling flat. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

:* Oppose. There are seven heavenly virtues in the Christian-centric world, throw in a couple more from other religions/philosophies and I think you really do have a category. Some of the articles open up "XXX is a virtue...", (others don't and should be removed accordingly). Otherwise we might find ourselves in the same position as gluttony (one of the seven deadly sins) only categorised as Category:Food and drink appreciation. Now than made me laugh. So I say it's some of the contents that are wrong, not the category itself. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 21:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Agree Richhoncho. Rename & create subcats?: Christian virtues, Biblical virtues: seven is OK for a clear named cat. Remains: throw from the cat the articles that are subjective - DePiep ( talk) 22:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• I change: Merge into parent Cat:Virtue, then delete the cat. Discovered: there is the Cat:Virtue and there is this CfD subcat Cat:Virtues. First on names: by the Naming convention (cat) a catname on a topic is singular, and can contain all articles that are a virtue, multiple virtues (like Seven), and about the topic virtue. So this is the one we keep for sure. (In there are/can be also the 'no-gluttony-effect' virtues Richhoncho mentiones). Second: is the CfD'ed cat:Virtues needed? Not by its name, nor intruduction, nor current content. Now I conclude: lets eliminate the CfD-cat Virtues indeed. But how? What to do with the content? Thre: first line of thought: all articles and subsubcats move from Virtues to Virtue, by a bot (then delete cat:Vitues). Then, in a second, separate sweep, we could throw out articles & subcats that are there by some WP:OC#Subjective inclusion: general consent or 'commonly and widely regarded as' virtue. One by one. What stays are Virtue (article), Seven Virtues, the Cardinal Virtues etc: virtues that are verifyably named as a virtue by their organisation. In a third sweep, or right now, we could check possible overlapping categories like Category:Morality and Category:Personality traits (I'd say no, but can be underinfomed). - DePiep ( talk) 08:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• ALso change to merge in line of DePiep's comments above.-- Richhoncho ( talk) 11:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - If there were some apparent way to restrict this to prevent NPOV plunking of everything any particular editor found to be virtuous into it, I'd say keep and restrict. However, there does not seem to be any such logical boundary. Whatever else happens, do not merge to Category:Virtue, which has pretty well been restricted to articles about the concept or history of virtue and not a plunked-together list of virtues. I shudder at the notion of swamping the two dozen or so articles currently in the parent with over a hundred articles from the subcat. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Good point. After counting (not reading) and at first glance: near zero articles would have to promote to Virtue. Almost. Lets check: cat: Virtue ethics- already there, category:Ancient Roman virtues: Keep=promote! Candidate articles for staying (up at cat:Virtue): Charity (virtue) and Hope (virtue). Some more? - DePiep ( talk) 00:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• So now it is: promote the 2 articles to cat:Virtue, then delete the whole cat? OK with me. - DePiep ( talk) 19:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Since the parent category is Category:Estuaries, not Category:Estuaries by country, anything removed from this can be upmerged. Plus, if as Vegas says, "not sure that the subcategory included belongs", that would leave an empty category. Kbdank71 14:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Estuaries of the Netherlands ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete for OVERCAT#SMALL: There is only 1, will stay this. Its one and only member subcat Category:Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta is OK in itself. Before deletion the cats should be kept (migrate to the subcat): Category:Estuaries Category:River deltas Category:Rivers of the Netherlands DePiep ( talk) 19:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment after nominating: idea is that the cat is cutted out in between. Connections should be kept. - DePiep ( talk) 20:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep as a part of a series. While there is only one, the other countries will be mostly if not completely categorized by country at some point. Having said that, I'm not sure that the subcategory included belongs. I suspect that some of the articles might be correctly included, but I was not able to sort that out. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Interesting. I'll write my thoughts here. On the "part of a series": I understand the series you mean is like "Estuaries of (country) XXX", so with only one in the cat, it would (should) still show up in Category:Estuaries. Do we need a new cat called "Estuaries by country" then? But without that one, what do we miss when the now-subsubcat is listed in Category:Estuaries as a cat with a different name (not mentioning the country), instead? I think this is not what the cat-structure is set up for (now getting intuitive). Aside, it could be OK, but this would overrule the OVERCAT#SMALL-argument. Elsewhere: if the cat is needed in a navbox or so, the article can always be piped into the country-name. On "(...) included belongs": I do not understand, mistype or too subtle English for me. On "some of the articles might be correctly included": indeed I think a lot of articles there should be out of this Category:Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta. This does not change the CfD subject here. - DePiep ( talk) 19:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete (except Helmy Kresa). If articles can be written about the song writers, then perhaps these could be reconsidered. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

: Category:Songs with music by Helmy Kresa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Songs with lyrics by Roy Alfred

Category:Songs by Stuart F. Louchheim

Category:Songs by Joe Lubin

Category:Songs written by Frank Madden

Category:Songs by Sidney Prosen

Category:Songs by Larry Russell

Category:Songs by Ray Stanley

Category:Songs by Jimmie Hodges

Category:Songs by Inez James

Category:Songs with music by Will Hudson

Category:Songs by Rudy Jackson

Category:Songs written by Billy Duke

Category:Songs written by Allan Flynn

Category:Songs by King Laney

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A bunch of categories with only one entry in the category and no relevant article regarding the songwriter Please note in each case I have tried to add songs, and have actually created a couple of articles to remove from this list. If anybody can find anything to expand/create the article I'd be more than pleased to remove the nomination on any of listed categories. Richhoncho ( talk) 17:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Helmy Kresa thanks to a note on my talk page I have now managed to put together a very weak and short article about Helmy Kresa. I wish to withdraw the nomination for Kresa. Thanks-- Richhoncho ( talk) 21:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Support deletion of such single article categories with no article for the author/lyricist/composer. Occuli ( talk) 23:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per precedent of similar Albums by producer categories (see this) Could this be considered G8 since these are categories without parent articles to match? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• I boldly tagged all of these as G8. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that, next time I have bunch of these I will G8 them. Saves a lot of work. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep in some (most) cases I'm (boldly) overturning these speedy deletion nominations. I understand the argument but I find it weak and certainly not strong enough to justify speedy deletion. The fact that the categories contain a single song is of course irrelevant per many many precedents. As far as having no parent article, this is usually a sign that the article should be created. Articles about non-notable songs are weeded out with a vengeance so at the very least all the people above are either authors or performers of notable songs. That may not always be the case but they have to be evaluated individually. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 22:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• I agree that it is not G8; and that a sole author of a notable song has at least some claim to notability, rather stronger than in the case of producers cited above. Occuli ( talk) 18:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment Category:Songs by songwriter is a backwater that I don't think anybody has looked at seriously at all. Until I created them, there was no relevant categories for Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards, Cathy Dennis (at least 19 songs listed at WP and no category) and about 50 others. Numerous sub-categories need to be renamed to be brought into line. If I can find enough information to create an article I have done this to save the category, about 3 or 4 times so far, including Helsy Krema, as noted above. However, what is left above are categories with only one entry, and I wouldn't think a category with one entry is a category in the first place! Secondly, at the moment there is no supporting article and by virtue of the fact I haven't been able to find enough basic information via Google an article is unlikely to be forthcoming. It's not that I "want" these categories to be deleted, but that I can't "find" enough details to keep them alive. Easy enough to recreate if there is enough information, but at the moment they merely clutter, serve no useful purpose and, as far as I can see, have opportunity to expand. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 12:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference to Category:Member schools of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a category of schools. Strictly speaking only the headteachers of these schools are members of the HMC, and they're unlikely to have an article about them. The schools they represent are usually called member schools. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Occuli ( talk) 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Songs by Tom Lehrer to Category:Songs written by Tom Lehrer

Category:Songs by Steve Allen to Category:Songs written by Steve Allen

Category:Songs by Henry Nemo to Category:Songs written by Henry Nemo

Category:Songs by Winfield Scott to Category:Songs written by Winfield Scott

Category:Songs by Ray Noble to Category:Songs written by Ray Noble

Category:Songs by Lew Douglas to Category:Songs written by Lew Douglas

Category:Songs by Hugh Martin to Category:Songs written by Hugh Martin

Category:Songs by Larry Markes to Category:Songs written by Larry Markes

Category:Jimmy Webb songs to Category:Songs written by Jimmy Webb

Category:Songs by Glenn Sutton to Category:Songs written by Glenn Sutton

Category:Songs by the Sherman Brothers to Category:Songs written by the Sherman Brothers

Category:Songs by Fred Fisher to Category:Songs written by Fred Fisher

Category:Songs by John D. Loudermilk to Category:Songs written by John D. Loudermilk

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Another bunch of categories to rename to bring into line with other categories in Category:Songs by songwriter. Richhoncho ( talk) 15:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Support all per clarity. Occuli ( talk) 16:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Move all per nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Although I don't agree with rationales given by the opposers, the result of this discusson is quite obvious. — Admiral Norton ^{( talk)} 10:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Bjelovar-Bilogora County to Category:Bjelovar–Bilogora County

Category:Brod-Posavina County to Category:Brod–Posavina County

Category:Dubrovnik-Neretva County to Category:Dubrovnik–Neretva County

Category:Koprivnica-Križevci County to Category:Krapina–Zagorje County

Category:Lika-Senj County to Category:Lika–Senj County

Category:Osijek-Baranja County to Category:Osijek–Baranja County

Category:Požega-Slavonia County to Category:Požega–Slavonia County

Category:Primorje-Gorski Kotar County to Category:Primorje–Gorski Kotar County

Category:Sisak-Moslavina County to Category:Sisak–Moslavina County

Category:Split-Dalmatia County to Category:Split–Dalmatia County

Category:Šibenik-Knin County to Category:Šibenik–Knin County

Category:Virovitica-Podravina County to Category:Virovitica–Podravina County

Category:Vukovar-Syrmia County to Category:Vukovar–Syrmia County

Rename. I have previously speedily renamed those, but the speedies were contested, so I reverted the move. I see no point in using grammatically and MOS:DASH non-abiding versions of category names. — Admiral Norton ^{( talk)} 13:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose any use of non-standard keyboard characters in category names as a barrier to navigation. No encyclopedic value is derived by slavish adherence to MOS:DASH. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Otto4711 and the numerous precedent decisions. I have removed my one speedy nomination for the reverse merge since the full CfD was created here. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Otto, Vegaswikian; much more easily found with a keyboard findable character when it is not obvious to the casual viewer that the character isn't what it looks like. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oppose non-standard characters make using categories for navigation difficult. 70.29.213.241 ( talk) 05:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Dead people of debated sexual orientation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Basically an "alleged", "rumored", or "debated" categorization, which categories are never great for. The fact that someone at some time asks the question, "Was so-and-so gay?" does not make the asking of that question a defining feature for the person. For instance, this is not defining for Abraham Lincoln or William Shakespeare. Minus, the BLP concerns, this is vaguely reminiscent of this, this, this, and even this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete, Ugly rumours do not categories make, or similar rationale. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. We've done this before, as noted, and there's absolutely no place for categorizing people on the basis of what some other people think they might have been. Bearcat ( talk) 19:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete eminently subjective criteria for inclusion, not to mention an intersection that is trivial and seems contrived to work around BLP. Maralia ( talk) 20:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete BLP doesn't apply to Lincoln or Shakespeare - sorry, folks, last I checked they were dead. However, "debated" sexual orientation - who's debated it? Why do we care that someone has debated it? Why would that be defining? If we sit around our coffee table and discuss who we think Julius Caesar boinked, do we get to add him here too? I do seem to recall having that discussion a few years back.... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Does not even pass introducionary paragraph of Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#General (3. not justifiable). Also: WP:CAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. That's wikitalk for: Just rumours, away with it on wiki. Could be speedy? - DePiep ( talk) 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per many arguments already stated (thereby leaving me nothing of substance to add). I suppose this could potentially be the subject of a serious article (but NOT a mere list), since this issue is discussed in the various biographies. Just for the hell of it, I added another parent, Category:Sexual orientation - Strange that the category's creator didn't think to do that. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 23:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Suggest Snowball WP:SNOWBALL: need for talkin, will never survive. Cunclude delete, and let's all do something better, elsewhere. - DePiep ( talk) 23:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep When I created the cat I was not aware of the previous existence of the cats mentioned by the nominator. However, this cat is different, as there are no BLP concerns. It is a major and defining aspect of every person in it, as well as for several others that should be added to the cat. The orientation of each of those in the cat are much debated, by historians as well as the public, years after the subject's deaths. The articles concerned have a great deal of info in their articles and talk pages about the fact their orientation is debated. That a US President and a British Prime Minister were probably LGBT are major milestone events. That the person whom is regarded by a large proportion of the population as the world's greatest writer ever was probably bisexual is very notable. LGBT organisations often state as fact that some of the people in the cat were LGBT. An article about the subject could reasonably be written. In the case of Lincoln and Shakespeare, Sexuality of ... articles already exist, proving it is very notable in their cases. Only those people whose sexual orientation was very relevant to their lives and place in history are in the cat. In the cases of each of those in the cat, it is far from trivial, and is not merely the case that someone at some time asked what orientation they were; all of them are of massively, not only occasionally, debated orientation. It is culturally relevant to LGBT and history, and also to modern popular culture: Lincoln's orientation was used prominently in the video to Electric Six's song Gay Bar. Nietzsche 2 ( talk) 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Well one more time then:

• as per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#General (see 3. general): Inclusion should be justifiable by external references. But none of the articles has a reference in here.
• as per CAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference: cat should only be created if there could be an article for that intersection. There is no 'jewish maths' (no article), and no 'deaths with xxx-rumours' (what would the article look like then?).
• And to be sure: as per WP:V verifyable fact, and WP:SOURCES say we want reliable sources.

*Now Nietzsche 2 come back only after you have read & understood the links here. - DePiep ( talk) 01:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• I'd advise that we go a little easier with the creator here. It's clear that the user is not acting in bad faith, so to tell them to come back only after having done such-and-such seems a bit harshly put. As far as I'm concerned the user is welcome back at any time, whether or not they do the background research that would of course be beneficial. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - inherently POV category. While there may not, strictly speaking, be BLP issues with this category, it's far too easy to add it someone's article to make insinuations about them. Moreover, pretty much every major historical figure has been alleged by someone to be gay at some point, so this isn't really a defining characteristic. Robofish ( talk) 04:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment Agree with Good Olfactory above. Text withdrawn. - DePiep ( talk) 07:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment No BLP issues - all subjects are definitely dead; none of the articles in question suggest any homosexual relationships with any living people. Though many people have at some point had their sexuality questioned by someone, this category is only for those whose sexual orientation is a subject of much debate, by experts / historians / media. I have read and understood the guidelines; this cat meets them. The category name is neutral and in each article in thae cat their orientation and the fact it is debated is a relevant part of their life and place in history. It is a defining charactersitic of Edward Heath that he was likely the only LGBT British PM; that he never came out of the closet; that he used beards; that if his true orientation had been known to the public he would never have become PM, perhaps never have even become an MP. As for the early part of his political career homosexual acts were criminal offences, he could have been prosecuted, even imprisoned. If any particular article is inadequately referenced for inclusion in the category, then more refs can be found. An article about the subject could be written, I could probably write the bare bones of it myself, and I'm no expert. The article could be called something along the lines of 'Closeted and probable LGBT people in positions of power and influence in history' and would begin by stating that there were many such people, including politicians, musicians, writers, etc that for various reasons never admitted their true orientation, and in many cases chose to deny it, and cover it up through the the use of beards and marriages of convenience. It would go through the reasons, including reduced public popularity, prosecution etc, and give examples. The fact that articles on the sexuality of two long-dead US Presidents, along with Shakespeare already exist means that internal links to those articles could be in the new article. Many people of much-disputed sexual orientation are, despite having died decades ago, still very relevant and influential to today's culture and life. Marc Bolan and John Lennon, each of whom's orientation (were they straight or bi?) is still dicussed. Their music is still played frequently and they were each a major part of 20th century history. Nietzsche 2 ( talk) 14:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - while I sharply disagree with the notion that calling someone gay is an "ugly rumor" and while I am sympathetic to the aims of the category's creator, that someone's sexuality is the topic of discussion after their death does not rise to the level of definingness for the person. Historical research is loaded with this sort of unanswerable question and trying to deal with them through categorizing the individuals is untenable and will lead to any number of other similar categories cluttering up biography articles. We do have Category:Sexuality of individuals which I think serves the intended purpose of this category and is restricted to articles about sexuality and not full biography articles. An article on researching the sexuality of historical figures, along with a sourced list, would be fascinating. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment - no comment on the category, but I want to note that I have blocked the category creator's ID ( Nietzsche 2 ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) indefinitely as a sock of indefintely blocked Werdnawerdna ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) ++ Lar: t/ c 02:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Debated - by whom? Too much trouble for too little benefit. Rklawton ( talk) 02:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Assassins by religion ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The only contents in this is Category:Jewish assassins. But I don't think it would be useful to categorize other assassins by religion (i.e. the intersection of a particular religion and being an assassin would not be defining for most assassins). This is clearly a case where the Jewish people are being categorized not by religion, but by being of Jewish "nationality" or "ethnicity". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Why is a categorization by ethnicity (The Jewish people are not a nationality, btw) more defining than a categorization by religion?-- Anewpester ( talk) 16:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Ethnicity is immutable. Religion isn't. Although personally I think WP overcategorizes based on both ethnicity and religion. Delete as unnecessary container category and to discourage further religion-based overcategorization. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• On the other hand, religion is more of a defining characteristic then ethnicity in this case because the assassin's religion tends to be more of a cause for the assassination then the assassin's ethnicity. -- Anewpester ( talk) 19:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Whether or not one or another Jewish assassin is motivated by religion is beyond the scope of this category, which asserts an encyclopedic value in categorizing all assassins by their religion. Otto4711 ( talk) 13:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• The religious motivation would be the scope of the category. If there's something that has encyclopedic value it's information about killing in the name of religion.-- Anewpester ( talk) 21:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete another useless religion/ethnicity category. This time the wikipedians may delete this because THEYDONTLIKEIT, but it is just the natural by-product of Wikipedia's insatiable desire to classify everyone by race, religion, ethnicity categories that do not define the people sought to be classified. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Religious based assasins are encyclopedic, even if the are jewish. Nominator, in his line 2, is switching into "This is clearly ..." (NO it is NOT) pulling the discussion from 'religious' to the "nationality" or "ethnicity" quicksand. I will only accept deletes based on straight references to WP:CAT, WP:CAT#OVERCAT, Cat people and of course Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality.Btw, it's not "jews only" anymore. We could change catname into "religion motivated/inspired assassins". - DePiep ( talk) 23:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete as overcategorisation by unimportant characteristic. I would accept a more narrowly-defined category for religiously-motivated assassins, which would include some of the people categorised here without including those whose religion was irrelevant to their crime. (See also the CFD higher up the page for Category:Jewish murderers, where much the same applies.) Robofish ( talk) 04:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• I change to Rename into Category:Religiously-motivated assassins agreeing with Anewpester and Robofis above. Then check the articles in there - DePiep ( talk) 06:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • See also for similar cfr-discussion starting April 15 on Category:Assassins by ethnicity. Suggest we apply conclusions here there too. - DePiep ( talk) 07:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete as intersection of 2 not-necessarily-related (or difficult-to-link-in-the-context-of-a-category) characteristics. Occuli ( talk) 10:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep.

• CfD closures are decided "by looking at strength of argument". Additionally, though we avoid "voting" where possible, numbers in support of the arguments is also used as an indication of a rough consensus.

1. Especially persuasive are the facts that historically this category was appropriate (avoiding recentism) supported by the fact that that division appears to be at least somewhat significant today - as emphasized by the BCA, which SMcCandlish cites here, leads to a conclusion that the category should be kept.
2. Despite discounting several "keep" comments, "numerical" consensus appears to support keeping the category. Only one person other than the nominator supports deletion while several offer reasoned arguments to keep it, an indication of rough consensus to keep.

• Using either basis to keep would result in a "keep" result. -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 22:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Female pool players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Third nomination. Previous two CfDs [1] [2] closed with "no consensus". This has sat unresolved for almost another 8 months now.

• This fails WP:CATGRS ("Categories should not be gendered unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic"), as arbitrary, pointless gendering of a category. There is nothing rare or special about female players, and women's pool is not different in any notable, encyclopedic way from men's, nor discriminated against in modern times. Women do not play the game in any known way, mentally or physically, differently than men, nor are the game rules or equipment at all different (which is not the case with, for example, women's basketball). Their roles and their opportunities for leadership are not different (which is not the case with, for example, Category:Women in the Canadian armed services. This is categorization by genitals, pure and simple.
• It fails WP:OVERCAT ("Avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated, even if some person can be found that has both traits", etc.), as a trivial intersection. There is nothing notable, or deeply related, or unusual about "pool player" and "female" being juxtaposed (contrast Category:Female astronauts). It is basically exactly the same idea as Category:Female doctors.
• The articles are already sorted by nationality, so no merge is necessary (the category can simply be deleted and removed from 13 articles, and there is no huge pile of unsorted pool player articles, or anything like that.
• The category is a structural orphan. There is no parent Category:Female cue sports players. Nor are there any collateral relatives, such as Category:Female snooker players, Category:Female carom billiards players or Category:Female players of English billiards, despite the fact that at least the snooker one would already have articles to populate it ( Karen Corr, etc.).
• A Female pool players (or Women's pocket billiards, Women in pool, etc.) article could arguably created, but it is highly dubious that this could be done without it being a PoV-pushing excercise (e.g. to preserve this category) unless it remained a stub, since there is little to tell that can be neutrally sourced other than that there have been female billiardists all along, some of them notable early pros (especially on the exhibition game circuit), and their entry into the top professional ranks was resisted until the latter 20th century, just as it was in all sports. I think that most of the content of any such article could simply be deleted and replaced with {{ main|Women's Professional Billiard Association}}.
• Update: New external evidence posted. 10:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Not having gone through the previous CfDs (so perhaps weight my thoughts accordingly), this nomination makes no sense to me. Female pool players have their own division of the WPA and compete separately in their own events. The fact that their equipment is the same as men whereas women's basketball players use a slightly smaller basketball than men is an irrelevant distinction IMO and should have no bearing on how the respective athletes are categorized. I don't agree that this fails WP:CAT since women compete separately. Oren0 ( talk) 01:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• They compete separately in some cases like WPA (and not in others, such as BCAPL, APA/CPA, VNEA, etc., a large host of pro tournaments like the Derby City Classic, and so on). This is probably true of virtually all sports on the planet, yet we do not divide them all into gendered categories, only those with a significant difference between the men's and women's versions. It just isn't the case here. Sorry. PS: It is unclear to me how you can possibly think that the women's basketball comparison is crucial to my nomination. It was one small point among over a dozen. PPS: That said, see Women's basketball; there are rules, not just equipment specs, differences which make it a distinct game and thus a distinct category. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep per my arguments last time and the time before (namely that some competitions and awards in pool are gender-based; and that there is Category:Sportswomen by sport). Occuli ( talk) 01:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Of course there is Category:Sportswomen by sport, since there are some (not all) sports that have significant gender differences that warrant gendered categories, and there thus has to be a container category for the sportswomen categories thus created. This is not a valid argument for the gender-division of any particular set of sports articles such as this one. That parent cat is an off-topic point, basically. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment are you deletion shopping? Both previous nominations were also profferred by yourself. Perhaps you should get someone else to nominate it for deletion. 70.29.213.241 ( talk) 05:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• No. Doing as you suggest would be a form of canvassing. The previous nominations did not reach consensus. Consensus is important, and this will have high precedential value either way, as the boundaries of WP:OVERCAT and WP:CATGRS have been too fuzzy for too long on the issue of questionably gendered categories like this. If the result is an unambiguous "keep", I'll never bring it up again. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• It's also worth noting that both previous CfDs were debatable closures. This is especially true in the case of the first one, which I would have closed as "consensus to keep" with no hesitation. The only reason those debates appeared not to be reaching consensus was the 500-word responses by the nom per response. So far, in 2+ nominations, the tally is 10 keeps to 3 deletes. I think it's time to let this go. Oren0 ( talk) 05:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• You're welcome to your opinion, but there is no reason to try to make this personal. The vast bulk of the keep responses in the previous CfDs were for specious reasons not responsive in any way to CfD-recognized rationales, and/or (often and) were ill-informed about the facts of the pool world. It's interesting that you link to WP:NOTAVOTE, but appear to be making a vote-based argument. 10 "keeps" that make little if any sense do not magically outweigh 3 "deletes" that do. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I think editors should lay off SMcCandlish. The fact that the previous two discussions were closed as "no consensus" is a good reason to have another discussion. Had they been closed as "keep", the complainers might have a case of the nominator pushing the issue too far, but a "no consensus" results pretty much cries out for a new discussion, which is all the nominator has done. Eight months is a completely reasonable amount of time to wait in between nominations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete unnecessary sex category. Do they play differently - and if so, would that be better or worse? If you cannot answer, it's not distinctive. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• The point isn't that they don't play differently, it's that they do compete separately. The fact that the rules are the same is irrelevant, what matters is that they compete for different championships, in different leagues, and only against each other. Take for example Category:Female divers or Category:Female golfers. In both cases, females are categorized separately because they compete separately. Would you lobby for the deletion of these as well? The fact that the rules of some women's games are different than men's games is irrelevant. It's the fact that they compete in their own leagues that merits separate categorization. Oren0 ( talk) 05:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Again, they sometimes compete separately, but other times do not, which is true of virtually every competitive activity on earth, yet they are not all gender divided in category-space. And in this realm they do not compete in different leagues at all. I think you are thinking of the WPBA (f) and the USPPA (m). These are not different leagues. They are different pro tours (and different corporate entities for internecine political reasons), but for competitive purposes they are the f and m professional franchisees of the BCA, and both of them feed into the US Open, the premier US-hosted pro pool event. Even pushing that aside, that is only an isolated US phenomenon. This is not us.en.wiki. WPA has no leagues at all. Actual leagues are not (so far as I have ever been able to determine after years of working on cue sports articles) gender-divided, from the APA to the VNA to the BCA/BCAPL, and including minor leagues like ACA, TAP, SFTPA, and others. I cannot speak for Carlossuarez46, but I would not "lobby" ( loaded term!) for deletion of either of the two categories you mention, because they are qualitatively different from the one at hand. PS: The fact that in some sports the game rules are (i.e. the game itself is) different is not irrelevant at all, but one of the main ways by which sports categories do get gender-split. That it does not apply here in any way at all is actually quite significant. There are precisely zero differences in rules, equipment, shot types, style of play, techniques, instruction and training, venues, etc., etc., etc. PPS: Another way of putting it: One of my area's local top-dog players also happens to be Anna Kostanian (who should have an article here by now), the #10 WPBA player and a professional road player. If you came up and told her there was some fundamental, defining difference between women's and men's pool, she would probably kick your [insert favorite term for backside here], and the entire pool hall, m & f alike, would cheer her on. I strongly suspect that you do not even realize that you have wandered inadvertently into a pool-world sore spot and are picking at its scab, in a way that random people may not notice but which actual members of the pocket billiards community find really, really annoying and outmoded. See Jean Balukas for a hint as to how long this m/f divide idea has publicly been obnoxious; it was incensing to many for generations before she stood up to it. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• "Again, they sometimes compete separately, but other times do not, which is true of virtually every competitive activity on earth" – I know of no other professional sport or game that works this way for serious competition except for poker, which is entirely gender mixed except for one ladies event a year, and tennis (mixed doubles). I'm far from an expert on the subject, but what I do know is that the WPA, the "international governing body for pocket billiards" according to its article, has separate divisions and championships for men and for women. The events I've seen on TV, no matter what type of pool they are, have always been either a men's championship or a women's one. That's competing separately on the largest and most important stages, correct? The fact that in random games men can play against women doesn't change the fact that, according to the governing body on the subject, they compete separately in professional events. Maybe the real solution here is to do what soccer does: see Category:Soccer players in the United States by competition. The women have their own subcategory ( Category:Women's United Soccer Association players) by virtue of having their own league. Women who compete in the Female division of the WPA can similarly have their own category, which I'm guessing would be functionally equivalent to this one. Oren0 ( talk) 17:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a valid XfD argument. Various televised events include m vs. f play, including Trick Shot Challenge and the World Speed Pool Championship, both of which are popular and frequently televised events, and both of which often feature female pros ( Jeanette Lee in particular comes to mind as a finalist in both events last year). This is a red herring anyway. The WPA does have separate divisions, sure. As an International Olympic Committee branch it is bound to, because the Olympics are highly gendered. This does not mean much of anything in the real world. Zero cue sports (pool, snooker, and other billiards disciplines) are even demo sports at the Olympic level. They've been blockaded for decades. The industry has largely given up on that cause, at least for the short term. The WPA events are significant in a symbolic sense, but no they are not the "largest and most important stages", which are the big-money tournaments like the US Open (with which the USPPA and WPA have different contracts) and the Derby City Classic (which is simply wide open). Despite being US-hosted, they are fully international. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep The individuals included are defined by their combination of sex and sport. Alansohn ( talk) 22:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

In what way? Demonstrate, don't just assert. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep - If the genders are separated in competition, then it is appropriate for our coverage to reflect that. Someone might be interested in a women's pool league and not a men's one. I await a reply from SMcCandlish... :) - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 22:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Arrrggghhh... Is no one even reading this at all? They are sometimes gender-divided in competition, and sometimes not. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• I don't appreciate the implication that I haven't read the background, and I would never make such a statement tarring you in that way. I think it's rude. Let me revise my statement, "If the genders are separated in competition in notable contexts, then it is appropriate for our coverage to reflect that. I consider the Olympics to be a notable context. I mean, boys and girls play soccer together on lawns across the planet, but they're separated in the Olympics. Get it? Insult me again, please.

  Also, look at my comment again. It starts with an "if", and if you show me, without being a dick, that genders are generally not separated, and that the separation is more the exception than the norm, then I'll agree with you. Otherwise, no. Insult me again, now. Pretty please.

  If you're too frustrated to post without saying "Arrggghhh...", then you're too frustrated to post. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 21:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Sorry you felt insulted. My frustration has to do not with your post in particular but with the class of them, through all three CfDs on this category, that provide the same argument, which has been addressed already, several times. I'll repeat what I've already said: There are no Olympic contexts for any cue sport at all, so your example is meaningless in this case. Attempts to breach the "Olympic curtain" by pool, snooker and all other forms of billiards have failed dismally, decade after decade after decade. Please show me in WP:CATGRS or WP:OVERCAT where it says that is a sport is sometimes gender-divided but usually is not, "in notable contexts", that this is sufficient justification for gendered categories. It just isn't there. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Yeah... that failed to convince me. So long. You could've had me, chose not to. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 05:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• You know... I'm the guy who originally wrote WP:WIARM. I'm not gonna cite policy at you, and I won't be impressed by policy citations. I don't read policy, and I don't think anyone else should, either. Arguments that convince me appeal directly to reality - no policy. I'm gonna strike my opinion from this debate, which clearly doesn't need or want my input.

  My word to the wise... If there's a discussion where I have to reply to, like, every post... I give up. YMMV. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 06:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep: if a sport is often played in a gender-separated way, then having categories that reflect this is entirely appropriate, and it is not mixing two unrelated things. This category for korfball or showjumping may be debatable, but for most sports, it is a perfectly normal and natural categorization. Fram ( talk) 09:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Please note that most non-Olympic and non-league/squad sports are not gender divided here in this way. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Update: This should really be the nail in the coffin of this absurd category: BCA press release. ^{[AZBilliards 1]} The salient details: Fristly, female player Jasmin Ouschan took the 14.1 continuous (a.k.a. straight pool) world title from defending champ Oliver Ortmann (male), beating 2008 world no. 1 player Mika Immonen (also male) in the process, at last year's World Championship (i.e. competing against men, not in separate divisions, which simply do not exist in that premier event). Secondly and perhaps even more saliently, this year's Ten-ball World Championship has so many women players in it that it has been dramatically called a female "invasion". If Wikipedia had existed 20 years ago, this gendered category division might have made sense, but it clearly no longer does. The gender politics of pool has radically shifted in recent years.