May 8
Category:Bangladesh under-19 cricketers
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: We don't categorise cricketers by under-19 national teams. StickyWicket ( talk) 22:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Nuclear energy in Argentina
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 21#Category:Nuclear energy in Argentina
Category:People who faked their own death
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep.
(non-admin closure)
Asmodea Oaktree (
talk) 12:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:People who faked their own death to Category:People who faked their own deaths
- Nominator's rationale: Shouldn't "death" be plural? Nyttend backup ( talk) 12:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Why should it be plural?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Presumably because "people" is plural.
Grutness...
wha? 00:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would expect that "own" is leading here, so singular sounds entirely natural to me. But I may be wrong. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Presumably because "people" is plural.
Grutness...
wha? 00:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Both constructs are grammatically correct; which to prefer depends on context. In this case, the singular is much more natural. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Paul_012. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Just thought about Harold and Maude -> didn't Harold fake/bungle his suicide several times? Or on the stage Alice Cooper's show deaths by hanging? Are there eventually other examples of a row of fake suicides in reality? Then I'd have to cancel my vote. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jewish doctors
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. Almost all of the !votes for not merging amounted to a view that the split was useful. As noted, that quite a subjective standard. Conversely, those in favour of merging cited a guideline,
WP:OCEGRS, and these categories seem to come squarely within that guideline.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 02:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Jewish military doctors to Category:Jewish physicians
- Propose merging Category:Jewish pathologists to Category:Jewish physicians
- Propose merging Category:Jewish immunologists to Category:Jewish physicians
- Propose merging Category:Jewish anatomists to Category:Jewish physicians
- Propose merging Category:Jewish neurologists to Category:Jewish physicians
- Nominator's rationale: There is historical justification for Category:Jewish physicians, but not for splitting it into medical specialities. If this is agreed I am happy to check that all the articles are in appropriate subcategories of Category:Medical doctors by specialty and nationality Rathfelder ( talk) 11:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep; it's helpful to split up the 67 articles about Jewish physicians into their various specialties. If you're looking for a Jewish physician, and you know he was an neurologist, what's the benefit of making you wade through the immunologists and the military doctors? Nyttend backup ( talk) 12:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersections with ethnicity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Nyttend backup above. Useful differentiation. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose the categories seem well populated and the most articles seem to have both the profession and Jewish faith/heritage cited. Merging at this point would just create larger and more confusing categories. As this is an intersection of religion/heritage and occupation, the old boring argument of WP:OCEGRS will inevitably be brought up, but in this case at least I believe that these categories are useful. Inter&anthro ( talk) 02:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Usefulness is a very vague and subjective criterion. The criterion of WP:OCEGRS is: the intersection is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. Which is not the case here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge These clearly violate the no lowest rung category rule of ERGS. Failure to follow that rule in the past has lead to major complaints against Wikipedia for overly seperating out people by ERGS characterisitics. This guildeline should overrule other considerations. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per WP:FINALRUNG which, as Johnpacklambert explained, was drafted for this exact case. It is not merely because an intersection of two or three features exist that it is defining. Otherwise be ready for Category:Left-handed red-hair Buddhist socialist hairdressers from Elko, Nevada. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge fails WP:OCEGRS. In the last couple centuries, "Jewish physicians" is also an inappropriate intersection so maybe it is better to rename Category:Medieval and early modern Jewish physicians and purge recent items ( t · c) buidhe 19:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- None of the articles I've looked at suggests that the clinical practice of these doctors was in any way affected by their being Jewish. Categories are supposed to be defining. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose (1) Physician is ambiguous. In UK and Europe it is a hospital speciality, not a synonym for medical doctor; (2) Most of these categories are well enough populated to keep; (3) Jewish is ultimately an ethnicity, not a religion. To the extent that these relate to medieval and early modern medicine, Jewish and Christina practice may have been quite different, since European (Christian) medicine was based on Greek and Roman medicine. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Except for anatomists, this nomination concerns modern medical specialities (not medieval or early modern), it is very unlikely that Jews do anything different here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Prime Video original programming
- 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) 02:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Match the parent article Amazon Prime Video. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per WP:C2D, article was moved after RM. Next time please use the speedy process. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and C2D. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support although WP:CFDS would be correct place in future, as it meets criteria C2D. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Century Association
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 02:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Century Association
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT
- The Century Association is a private supper club in New York City. The only other article in this category, Charles Reid (painter), cites is obituary that he joined the club in 1988 (and has a painting hung up there) but that's a pretty weak basis for a category. WP:SMALLCAT isn't an issue though as the main article lists other members like Dwight D. Eisenhower and Franklin D. Roosevelt; rather the problem is that simple membership in a private club is just not defining and won't aid navigation. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom ( t · c) buidhe 06:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:NONDEFINING. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 02:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:People for whom the U.S. Navy named ships
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:SHAREDNAME
- The U.S. Navy names ships after prominent (usually) deceased Americans baving streets, schools and ships named after someone is not defining and creates a category with nothing else in common. I can't imagine a Wikipedia reader who would want a direct navigational path between John F. Kennedy, Sacagawea and the Wright brothers. This might work under Category:Lists of ships of the United States so I copied all the category contents right here so no work is lost if another editors wants to start a list. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Background We've deleted similar categories, including here, here, and here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete for me, this is a nondefining award ( t · c) buidhe 06:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also, given the size of List of current ships of the United States Navy, this is woefully underpopulated even among current ships, let alone those decommissioned during the last almost-250 years. To me that suggests that this isn't a particularly useful category, definingness aside. Nyttend backup ( talk) 12:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retain The fact that this category is "woefully underpopulated" is related to the fact that it has only existed for a few hours, not related to the validity of the category. The first editor to coment says that ships have been named after prominent people. But who is seen as prominent, especially to Naval decision makers, has changed over the years. Note, for example, that a ship was recently named after Harvey Milk, certainly a reflection of changing attitudes considering that Milk claimed he was dishonorablly discharged from the Navy. A category like this is of interest for those who want to study trends in the politics of recognition and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete unseth ( talk • contribs)
- But this category just groups biographies together regardless of when a ship was named and can't show that naming policy evolution like an article could with dates and citations. I made a copy of the contents because I agree there's a potentially notable topic here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, not a defining characteristic of these people. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. Not defining characteristic to have a US Navy ship named after you, we don't have it for other countries e.g. Royal Navy (UK). Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete categorization should be by things that define an individual. An honor that is often not given until after death is not a defining way to group people, espeically since to choice to name the ships after the people so named after is brought about by many different things. There is no unified category here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
May 8
Category:Bangladesh under-19 cricketers
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: We don't categorise cricketers by under-19 national teams. StickyWicket ( talk) 22:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Nuclear energy in Argentina
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 21#Category:Nuclear energy in Argentina
Category:People who faked their own death
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep.
(non-admin closure)
Asmodea Oaktree (
talk) 12:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:People who faked their own death to Category:People who faked their own deaths
- Nominator's rationale: Shouldn't "death" be plural? Nyttend backup ( talk) 12:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Why should it be plural?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Presumably because "people" is plural.
Grutness...
wha? 00:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would expect that "own" is leading here, so singular sounds entirely natural to me. But I may be wrong. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Presumably because "people" is plural.
Grutness...
wha? 00:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Both constructs are grammatically correct; which to prefer depends on context. In this case, the singular is much more natural. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Paul_012. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Just thought about Harold and Maude -> didn't Harold fake/bungle his suicide several times? Or on the stage Alice Cooper's show deaths by hanging? Are there eventually other examples of a row of fake suicides in reality? Then I'd have to cancel my vote. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jewish doctors
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. Almost all of the !votes for not merging amounted to a view that the split was useful. As noted, that quite a subjective standard. Conversely, those in favour of merging cited a guideline,
WP:OCEGRS, and these categories seem to come squarely within that guideline.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 02:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Jewish military doctors to Category:Jewish physicians
- Propose merging Category:Jewish pathologists to Category:Jewish physicians
- Propose merging Category:Jewish immunologists to Category:Jewish physicians
- Propose merging Category:Jewish anatomists to Category:Jewish physicians
- Propose merging Category:Jewish neurologists to Category:Jewish physicians
- Nominator's rationale: There is historical justification for Category:Jewish physicians, but not for splitting it into medical specialities. If this is agreed I am happy to check that all the articles are in appropriate subcategories of Category:Medical doctors by specialty and nationality Rathfelder ( talk) 11:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep; it's helpful to split up the 67 articles about Jewish physicians into their various specialties. If you're looking for a Jewish physician, and you know he was an neurologist, what's the benefit of making you wade through the immunologists and the military doctors? Nyttend backup ( talk) 12:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersections with ethnicity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Nyttend backup above. Useful differentiation. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose the categories seem well populated and the most articles seem to have both the profession and Jewish faith/heritage cited. Merging at this point would just create larger and more confusing categories. As this is an intersection of religion/heritage and occupation, the old boring argument of WP:OCEGRS will inevitably be brought up, but in this case at least I believe that these categories are useful. Inter&anthro ( talk) 02:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Usefulness is a very vague and subjective criterion. The criterion of WP:OCEGRS is: the intersection is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. Which is not the case here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge These clearly violate the no lowest rung category rule of ERGS. Failure to follow that rule in the past has lead to major complaints against Wikipedia for overly seperating out people by ERGS characterisitics. This guildeline should overrule other considerations. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per WP:FINALRUNG which, as Johnpacklambert explained, was drafted for this exact case. It is not merely because an intersection of two or three features exist that it is defining. Otherwise be ready for Category:Left-handed red-hair Buddhist socialist hairdressers from Elko, Nevada. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge fails WP:OCEGRS. In the last couple centuries, "Jewish physicians" is also an inappropriate intersection so maybe it is better to rename Category:Medieval and early modern Jewish physicians and purge recent items ( t · c) buidhe 19:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- None of the articles I've looked at suggests that the clinical practice of these doctors was in any way affected by their being Jewish. Categories are supposed to be defining. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose (1) Physician is ambiguous. In UK and Europe it is a hospital speciality, not a synonym for medical doctor; (2) Most of these categories are well enough populated to keep; (3) Jewish is ultimately an ethnicity, not a religion. To the extent that these relate to medieval and early modern medicine, Jewish and Christina practice may have been quite different, since European (Christian) medicine was based on Greek and Roman medicine. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Except for anatomists, this nomination concerns modern medical specialities (not medieval or early modern), it is very unlikely that Jews do anything different here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Prime Video original programming
- 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) 02:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Match the parent article Amazon Prime Video. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per WP:C2D, article was moved after RM. Next time please use the speedy process. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and C2D. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support although WP:CFDS would be correct place in future, as it meets criteria C2D. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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:Century Association
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 02:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Century Association
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT
- The Century Association is a private supper club in New York City. The only other article in this category, Charles Reid (painter), cites is obituary that he joined the club in 1988 (and has a painting hung up there) but that's a pretty weak basis for a category. WP:SMALLCAT isn't an issue though as the main article lists other members like Dwight D. Eisenhower and Franklin D. Roosevelt; rather the problem is that simple membership in a private club is just not defining and won't aid navigation. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom ( t · c) buidhe 06:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:NONDEFINING. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 02:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:People for whom the U.S. Navy named ships
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:SHAREDNAME
- The U.S. Navy names ships after prominent (usually) deceased Americans baving streets, schools and ships named after someone is not defining and creates a category with nothing else in common. I can't imagine a Wikipedia reader who would want a direct navigational path between John F. Kennedy, Sacagawea and the Wright brothers. This might work under Category:Lists of ships of the United States so I copied all the category contents right here so no work is lost if another editors wants to start a list. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Background We've deleted similar categories, including here, here, and here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete for me, this is a nondefining award ( t · c) buidhe 06:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also, given the size of List of current ships of the United States Navy, this is woefully underpopulated even among current ships, let alone those decommissioned during the last almost-250 years. To me that suggests that this isn't a particularly useful category, definingness aside. Nyttend backup ( talk) 12:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retain The fact that this category is "woefully underpopulated" is related to the fact that it has only existed for a few hours, not related to the validity of the category. The first editor to coment says that ships have been named after prominent people. But who is seen as prominent, especially to Naval decision makers, has changed over the years. Note, for example, that a ship was recently named after Harvey Milk, certainly a reflection of changing attitudes considering that Milk claimed he was dishonorablly discharged from the Navy. A category like this is of interest for those who want to study trends in the politics of recognition and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete unseth ( talk • contribs)
- But this category just groups biographies together regardless of when a ship was named and can't show that naming policy evolution like an article could with dates and citations. I made a copy of the contents because I agree there's a potentially notable topic here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, not a defining characteristic of these people. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. Not defining characteristic to have a US Navy ship named after you, we don't have it for other countries e.g. Royal Navy (UK). Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete categorization should be by things that define an individual. An honor that is often not given until after death is not a defining way to group people, espeically since to choice to name the ships after the people so named after is brought about by many different things. There is no unified category here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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.