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
Golden Party Badge was given to the first 100,000 who joined the Nazi Party in Germany. That's not very unique or defining and everyone, by definition, can be categorized under the
Category:Nazis. Being a Nazi is defining, automatically getting this award for signing up early is not. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
RevelationDirect, it would be more accurate to say that the German branch of the Nazi Party and its Austrian version were at odds over who effectively joined when, and what that meant in terms of seniority in the combined Nazi Party, and therefore who was entitled to the badge.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:14, 12 January 2017 (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:Order of the Virtues (Egypt)
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 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:Wikipedians that kiss up to Jimmy Wales
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 but don't empty. Early closure per
WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.
The category page itself was one of
a series created byUser:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages. That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory? Whatever anyone's views on that question,
WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question. So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion. WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry joke user category which does nothing to aid the process of collaboration. We all obviously have our own opinions about Jimbo one way or the other -- but we collaborate on content, not on interpersonal interaction with other Wikipedians. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not really about improving the encyclopedia per se.)
Bearcat (
talk)
19:14, 5 January 2017 (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:Confirmed Sockpuppets of User:Jimmy Wales
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: Single-entry joke user category which does nothing to aid the process of collaboration because it's simply not actually true. Firstly, while I can't claim to have any insider knowledge of whether Jimbo does have a secret army of sockpuppets or not (nobody would ever suspect him!), there's no documentation anywhere of this user actually being "confirmed" as one. Secondly, confirmed sockpuppets of other users are normally blocked, not merely categorized and then allowed to continue sockpuppeting. And thirdly, this isn't even correctly formatted with the template that's actually used to create a real sockpuppets category, which itself shows that it wasn't created by SPI on a real sockcheck.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete Per
WP:G3, pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. I don't normally care one way or another about the user categories but we can't have fake sockpuppet categories. Even if it's meant to be funny, it's a hoax.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:24, 6 January 2017 (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:Wikipedians suspected of being filmmaker Michael Moore
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 but don't empty. Early closure per
WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.
The category page itself was one of
a series created byUser:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages. That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory? Whatever anyone's views on that question,
WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question. So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion. WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry user category which does nothing to aid the process of collaboration. I suppose one could technically use this to track people who shouldn't be editing
Michael Moore or his films because of the potential
conflict of interest — but we normally use such categories to track usernames that might be sockpuppets of other usernames, not to out people's suspected or known real-world identities.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:56, 5 January 2017 (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:Wikipedians not named Kevin
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 but don't empty. Early closure per
WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.
The category page itself was one of
a series created byUser:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages. That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory? Whatever anyone's views on that question,
WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question. So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion. WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: User category which exists to contain just one user, on a characteristic that does nothing whatsoever to aid the process of collaboration. As common as the name Kevin may be, I'm comfortable hazarding a guess that this category would be true of at least 95 per cent of all Wikipedia users, and about the only collaborative potential I can imagine for this would be watchlisting our mainspace list of people with the given name
Kevin to remove erroneous entries -- which is something that even a person who is named Kevin could still do.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:40, 5 January 2017 (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:Attempted spanish reconquest of Ecuador
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: Unclear inclusion criteria due to not being linked to a specific article, or section of an article, identifying exactly which historic event is referred to here. The inclusion of
Lord Palmerston who was the British Foreign Secretary in the 1840s with nothing in that article linking him to the event shows how unclear this category currently is.
Tim! (
talk)
18:13, 5 January 2017 (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.
Zimbabwean/African somethingers
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.
All these categories are a bit vague, and most of them describe something which many people do non-notably as part of a wider role. Performing these tasks is not, of itself, a defining characteristic.
Delete all. We do not create "keyword" categories for every promotional buzzword-phrase that a person might want to apply to themselves (such as a category for every self-invented musical genre term that an individual musician or band creates to convey how much more unique and original their music is than anybody else's) — we categorize people by
WP:DEFINING classifications. For just one example of the problem here, given that the whole idea of coaching is to help the coached improve, by definition all coaches are "success coaches" given the total lack of any known "failure coaches" — which is why calling oneself a "success coach" is PR puffery rather than objectively defining fact. And being a "seminar/workshop facilitator" isn't particularly defining either, as there's nothing particularly notable about that in its own right. All in all, pure self-promotional silliness.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:19, 5 January 2017 (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:Fictional healthcare occupations by series
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 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.
1816 establishments in Indiana Territory
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.
Nominators rationale I have to admit I don't have a strong feeling either way. Indiana became a state in December of 1816. Many of the offices and state apparatus of the state, which is over half of the Indiana category, were technically set up before it actually became a state. It just is not worth while to split this category in two, it should all be one. I think we can assume that the idea of Indiana as a state existed enough before it was formally made one that we can group the whole year under the state. If there is strong feeling to go the other way I would go with that too.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Neutral - i don't have a strong feeling for any of those, but agree with the idea to have a single category for the year 1816 (when Indiana Territory became Indiana).
GreyShark (
dibra)
09:07, 10 January 2017 (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:DC Animated Universe characters
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 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:Fictional characters who are able to fly
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: Previously deleted by consensus two times before, but I did not realize there was a statute of limitations on such re-creations. I realize consensus can change, but it seems that the same rationale to delete still applies. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me00:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete In the 2008 discussion they said this is much better covered by a list, and it still remains true. Even
Superman didn't fly in his earliest incarnations in comic books, he lept over buildings in a single bound, although since he started flying about 5 years into his 75+ career in comics and other fiction, it is probably safe to assume that it is a defining characteristic of him. There are lots of different ways people fly, and there is also the fact that some characters fly with pixie dust, etc. Does that count? A list might well work, but not a category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:32, 5 January 2017 (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
Golden Party Badge was given to the first 100,000 who joined the Nazi Party in Germany. That's not very unique or defining and everyone, by definition, can be categorized under the
Category:Nazis. Being a Nazi is defining, automatically getting this award for signing up early is not. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
RevelationDirect, it would be more accurate to say that the German branch of the Nazi Party and its Austrian version were at odds over who effectively joined when, and what that meant in terms of seniority in the combined Nazi Party, and therefore who was entitled to the badge.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:14, 12 January 2017 (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:Order of the Virtues (Egypt)
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 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:Wikipedians that kiss up to Jimmy Wales
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 but don't empty. Early closure per
WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.
The category page itself was one of
a series created byUser:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages. That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory? Whatever anyone's views on that question,
WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question. So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion. WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry joke user category which does nothing to aid the process of collaboration. We all obviously have our own opinions about Jimbo one way or the other -- but we collaborate on content, not on interpersonal interaction with other Wikipedians. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not really about improving the encyclopedia per se.)
Bearcat (
talk)
19:14, 5 January 2017 (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:Confirmed Sockpuppets of User:Jimmy Wales
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: Single-entry joke user category which does nothing to aid the process of collaboration because it's simply not actually true. Firstly, while I can't claim to have any insider knowledge of whether Jimbo does have a secret army of sockpuppets or not (nobody would ever suspect him!), there's no documentation anywhere of this user actually being "confirmed" as one. Secondly, confirmed sockpuppets of other users are normally blocked, not merely categorized and then allowed to continue sockpuppeting. And thirdly, this isn't even correctly formatted with the template that's actually used to create a real sockpuppets category, which itself shows that it wasn't created by SPI on a real sockcheck.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete Per
WP:G3, pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. I don't normally care one way or another about the user categories but we can't have fake sockpuppet categories. Even if it's meant to be funny, it's a hoax.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:24, 6 January 2017 (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:Wikipedians suspected of being filmmaker Michael Moore
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 but don't empty. Early closure per
WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.
The category page itself was one of
a series created byUser:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages. That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory? Whatever anyone's views on that question,
WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question. So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion. WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry user category which does nothing to aid the process of collaboration. I suppose one could technically use this to track people who shouldn't be editing
Michael Moore or his films because of the potential
conflict of interest — but we normally use such categories to track usernames that might be sockpuppets of other usernames, not to out people's suspected or known real-world identities.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:56, 5 January 2017 (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:Wikipedians not named Kevin
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 but don't empty. Early closure per
WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.
The category page itself was one of
a series created byUser:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages. That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory? Whatever anyone's views on that question,
WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question. So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion. WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: User category which exists to contain just one user, on a characteristic that does nothing whatsoever to aid the process of collaboration. As common as the name Kevin may be, I'm comfortable hazarding a guess that this category would be true of at least 95 per cent of all Wikipedia users, and about the only collaborative potential I can imagine for this would be watchlisting our mainspace list of people with the given name
Kevin to remove erroneous entries -- which is something that even a person who is named Kevin could still do.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:40, 5 January 2017 (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:Attempted spanish reconquest of Ecuador
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: Unclear inclusion criteria due to not being linked to a specific article, or section of an article, identifying exactly which historic event is referred to here. The inclusion of
Lord Palmerston who was the British Foreign Secretary in the 1840s with nothing in that article linking him to the event shows how unclear this category currently is.
Tim! (
talk)
18:13, 5 January 2017 (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.
Zimbabwean/African somethingers
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.
All these categories are a bit vague, and most of them describe something which many people do non-notably as part of a wider role. Performing these tasks is not, of itself, a defining characteristic.
Delete all. We do not create "keyword" categories for every promotional buzzword-phrase that a person might want to apply to themselves (such as a category for every self-invented musical genre term that an individual musician or band creates to convey how much more unique and original their music is than anybody else's) — we categorize people by
WP:DEFINING classifications. For just one example of the problem here, given that the whole idea of coaching is to help the coached improve, by definition all coaches are "success coaches" given the total lack of any known "failure coaches" — which is why calling oneself a "success coach" is PR puffery rather than objectively defining fact. And being a "seminar/workshop facilitator" isn't particularly defining either, as there's nothing particularly notable about that in its own right. All in all, pure self-promotional silliness.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:19, 5 January 2017 (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:Fictional healthcare occupations by series
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 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.
1816 establishments in Indiana Territory
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.
Nominators rationale I have to admit I don't have a strong feeling either way. Indiana became a state in December of 1816. Many of the offices and state apparatus of the state, which is over half of the Indiana category, were technically set up before it actually became a state. It just is not worth while to split this category in two, it should all be one. I think we can assume that the idea of Indiana as a state existed enough before it was formally made one that we can group the whole year under the state. If there is strong feeling to go the other way I would go with that too.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Neutral - i don't have a strong feeling for any of those, but agree with the idea to have a single category for the year 1816 (when Indiana Territory became Indiana).
GreyShark (
dibra)
09:07, 10 January 2017 (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:DC Animated Universe characters
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 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:Fictional characters who are able to fly
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: Previously deleted by consensus two times before, but I did not realize there was a statute of limitations on such re-creations. I realize consensus can change, but it seems that the same rationale to delete still applies. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me00:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete In the 2008 discussion they said this is much better covered by a list, and it still remains true. Even
Superman didn't fly in his earliest incarnations in comic books, he lept over buildings in a single bound, although since he started flying about 5 years into his 75+ career in comics and other fiction, it is probably safe to assume that it is a defining characteristic of him. There are lots of different ways people fly, and there is also the fact that some characters fly with pixie dust, etc. Does that count? A list might well work, but not a category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:32, 5 January 2017 (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.