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) 05:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Variable-geometry wing to Category:Variable-geometry wing aircraft

Propose renaming Category:Variable-incidence wing to Category:Variable-incidence wing aircraft

Propose renaming Category:Variable-sweep wing to Category:Variable-sweep wing aircraft

Nominator's rationale: All other subcategories of Category:Wing configuration are in the "Foobar aircraft" format. Changing these would conform to that standard, and also not look so out-of-place in category listings when used. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support rename as per nom, the subject is the aircraft not the actual wing. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support rename I can not recall one production model aircraft that had an optional Variable-geometry wing so this would apply to all or none aircraft of a particular model. Hcobb ( talk) 20:29, 13 October 2011 (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 to Category:Valencia, Spain.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Valencia to Category:Valencia, Spain (city)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguation needed as there is a city Valencia in the Philippines, the province Valencia in Spain, and the autonomous community Valencia too in Spain - see Valencia (disambiguation) Mayumashu ( talk) 22:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support - there's also the variety of orange (fruit) Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 20:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose suggested rename. The article is at Valencia, Spain, so rename to Category:Valencia, Spain. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Valencia, Spain, per main article. Jafeluv ( talk) 21:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support move to Category: Valencia, Spain. Note that all of the subcategories but none of the parent categories should also be changed. Note to the closing administrator: if you can't change all these categories based on the current proposal, please relist with the subcategories. Better relist than lose sight of this problem. If the current proposal is sufficient to make all necessary changes, this would be great! Mayumashu, thanks for spotting the problem! gidonb ( talk) 00:11, 27 October 2011 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Sex trade to Category:Sex industry

Nominator's rationale: As Sex trade is just a redirect to Sex industry, I believe this upmerge is recommended. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:36, 12 October 2011 (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 to Category:Iowa Stars (AHL).-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Iowa Stars to Category:???

Nominator's rationale: Needs clarification...there are two Iowa Stars teams, the 1969-70 CPHL one out of Waterloo ( Iowa Stars (1969-70) and the 2005-08 AHL one out of Des Moines ( Iowa Chops). Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• There is no need to disambiguate at this point since there is only one category and it is very unlikely that there will be a separate category for a team that played for a single year in a very low minor league. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

FYI, the CPHL wasn't a "very low-level" hockey league...it was the highest-level owned exclusively by the NHL, and only the AHL and maybe the IHL were higher. You have no problem with me spelling out on this category that it refers to the 2005-2008 AHL team? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

It was a pretty low level of hockey in this time period it was far down the totem pole as you mention there were at least two leagues ahead of it. Being sent to the CPHL was often considered the end of your career. Either way that is neither here nor there. My only point was that its not likely to get a category. But yes on the currently existing category you can certainly make it clear what its for. I have no problem with that. - DJSasso ( talk) 21:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

That there are two separate entities means that this should be disambiguated, otherwise, it should be deleted. Categories are not supposed to be grabbag collections of things with the same label. 70.49.126.190 ( talk) 04:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply

The category isn't used for both. - DJSasso ( talk) 11:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply

It was an implication of your argument that there doesn't need to be a separate category for the other one. This implies that the other team should be included in this category. If this wasn't your intention, the name of the category still suggests this result. 70.49.126.190 ( talk) 04:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply

My implication is that there will never be enough articles for the other team to justify having a category for it. Most minor league teams except the ones in the higher minor leagues don't have individual team categories. The individual articles just go in the most relevant parent categories. Since there currently is only one article for the older team it would go in the category for the teams in the league it belonged to. As for the name of the category implying something, that is what you use category descriptions for. To explain what the use of the category is. And to be honest with only one subcategory in this category I would likely delete it before renaming it. - DJSasso ( talk) 12:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply

DJ, most of the other Central Hockey League 60s-80s franchises have their own categories, so it would seem that there is a case for having a CHL Stars category. Although, to be fair, most of the other franchises lasted longer...but then again, the AHL Stars/Chops didn't last too long Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah I am not saying that at some point disambig might not be a good idea. Just don't think it really is at this point is all. If anything I might just suggest completely deleting this category because at the moment there is only one item in it and put the item in it into the Iowa Chops category since they were the same team with only a name change. - DJSasso ( talk) 20:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply

That's actually not a bad idea... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Iowa Stars (AHL) Mayumashu ( talk) 13:55, 13 October 2011 (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: merge.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Irish-American organized crime gangs to Category:Irish American gangs

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Irish American gangs, as part of sorting out a lot of Irish mob overcategorization. Irish American gangs is the larger cat. and this subcat does not serve to make things less ambiguous; what is the difference between a gang and an organized crime gang? RepublicanJacobite _TheFortyFive 15:34, 12 October 2011 (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 by nom and no support from others. Favonian ( talk) 17:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Irish American organized crime to Category:Irish mob

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; Irish American organized crime and Irish mob are the same thing. The main article is Irish mob and the category should match. The Irish American organized crime category has only one article in it: Irish mob, which is also in the Irish mob subcat. Alot of repetition here that ought to be sorted out. RepublicanJacobite _TheFortyFive 15:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• comment it not clear that all the material in this category is competely described by the term 'Irish Mob' or its article Irish Mob. Can you make a case? Hmains ( talk) 03:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply

It is clear if you read the main article. Irish Mob may seem like a vague term, but it is the term used by writers on the subject, like T. J. English. Irish American organized crime might seem more precise, but it is subsumed by the other, more prevalent, term. --- RepublicanJacobite _TheFortyFive 14:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply

If it were clear to me, I would not have asked the question. As it is, the article Irish Mob does not anywhere state the scope of the term 'Irish Mob'. It just says the Irish Mob exists. It is not clear that the term 'Irish Mob' is the used/accepted generic term to cover all organized crime activties of Irish people in the U.S. since their arrival in the US to the present. Thus the problem. Hmains ( talk) 19:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC) reply

The article is not well-written or well-referenced, that is clear. The single best book on the subject to-date, Paddy Whacked by T. J. English, consistently uses the term Irish Mob, or Irish-American Mob, to describe the phenomenon, and it covers the period from the beginning of the 19th century up to the end of the 20th.

For our purposes here, though, the question is over-categorization, and the failure of the category's creator to make clear why the multiple categories are needed. The Irish Mob category already existed, and was populated, with a main article that shared the title. What purpose is served by the other categories? --- RepublicanJacobite _TheFortyFive 22:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes but I do notice that the parent category is Category:Organized crime in the United States by ethnicity and every subcategory is named 'fooian American organized crime' so it seems that any changes should be kept in sync with that pattern--which your change would dismantle. Hmains ( talk) 05:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• do not merge This would disrupt the naming pattern noted just above. Hmains ( talk) 03:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Nomination withdrawn. Rethinking my logic above, I withdraw this nomination. --- RepublicanJacobite _TheFortyFive 17:18, 25 October 2011 (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: no consensus. I'll assume that "Wikipedia does not tolerate information" is a keep vote in disguise.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional characters on the autistic spectrum ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary union. While being autistic may be a defining characteristic, it is not clear that being fictional and autistic is (especially for those towards the Asperger's side of the spectrum). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• See related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters on the autism spectrum. Mangoe ( talk) 21:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

DELETE!!!: Wikipedia does not tolerate information! -- THE DELETIONATER ( talk) 23:04, 22 October 2011 (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 to Category:Applebay aircraft. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Applebay Sailplanes to Category:Applebay Aviation aircraft Category:Applebay aircraft

Nominator's rationale: Per categories of Category:Aircraft by manufacturer.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 13:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment - As far as I can tell the final company's name in this series (After Aero Tek) was Applebay Sailplanes, not Applebay Aviation, so perhaps a better name would be Applebay Sailplanes aircraft or if that sounds odd, since most of the designs in the series were produced by George Applebay acting as an individual or by Aero Tek then it may make more sense to rename it George Applebay aircraft designs. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Applebay aircraft - conforms to the standards of the naming tree ("aircraft designs" wouldn't), while avoiding the "...Aviation/...Sailplanes" confusion altogether! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I like that better. Updated.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Works for me. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:38, 12 October 2011 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting Category:Ships with ice classification

Propose deleting Category:Ships in Ice Class 1A

Propose deleting Category:Ships in Ice Class 1A Super

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are several reasons why I have proposed the aforementioned categories for deletion:

• Ice class is usually not a defining characteristic of a merchant ship ( WP:DEFINING). Most ships calling northern ports are strengthened for navigation in ice — for example in 2008 47 % of the Finnish tonnage had the highest Finnish-Swedish ice class, 1A Super. While the ice class is usually mentioned in the infobox and perhaps in a single sentence in the article body, it is rarely discussed further. In most cases it is a trivial characteristic ( WP:OC#TRIVIA).
• The categories seem to be inclined towards the Finnish-Swedish ice classes and mainly list Finnish and Swedish cruiseferries even though probably a large number of other ship articles would qualify at least for the first category (see above).
  • While the Finnish-Swedish ice class rules are used to determine several technical aspects (level of ice strengthening, minimum engine power, winterization), they are mainly used to determine the fairway fees and availability of icebreaker assistance in the Nordic countries during the winter months, and have nothing to do with the actual operational capability of the vessel in ice-infested waters.
  • Although there are other ice classes, e.g. Polar classes and classification societies' own classes, they are usually reserved for icebreakers which already have their own category group. Tupsumato ( talk) 18:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Relisted because subcategories were tagged but not listed in the earlier nomination.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 13:17, 12 October 2011 (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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 9.. Dana boomer ( talk) 00:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Water ice to Category:Ice

Nominator's rationale: Of all the attempts I've seen to disambiguate a category, this is one of the oddest. The article for "water ice" is at Ice—it does not attempt to disambiguate from the slang term for diamonds, or the DC superheroine of that name, or anything else. On the internet, the term "water ice" seems to refer almost solely to a dessert in Philadelphia. Yes, I'm aware that ice can come from other volatiles, but do we need to segregate articles about dry ice and spin ice from this? I think we should just assume people know what ice is.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 13:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• comment 'Water ice' distinguishes this kind of ice from other ice as described in Volatiles. This from the hatnote of Water ice Hmains ( talk) 03:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Strong oppose water ice specifies this as the category for water ice, and not just a place to dump ices of any old volatile. 70.49.126.190 ( talk) 04:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • This isn't any old volatile. It's water. I've found only two articles about ices that are not water, dry ice and spin ice. Why can't those be categorized under Category:Ice with the water ice articles?-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• do not rename This is not scientifically correct, that's why not and WP based on science, not editor convenience. Category:Water ice needs to be made into a subcat of Category:Ice to be correct. Parent cats also need to be fixed to make this correct. Hmains ( talk) 02:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nominator. I don't see any advantage for segregating "water ice" from ice in general. There is no "scientific" reason that water ice can't be legitimately grouped with other types of ice, as is suggested above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose All water ice is ice, but not all ice is water ice. Could be confusing to have it categorised as such. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Merge we follow the articles, and the article is under ice, and assumes that this is meant to mean ice formed from water. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:50, 4 November 2011 (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 by adding 'space'. Vehicles v systems and deletion will need to be raised as separate issues in the future if additional renaming is needed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Expendable launch systems to Category:Expendable space launch vehicles OR Category:Expendable space launch systems

Propose renaming Category:Reusable launch systems to Category:Reusable space launch vehicles OR Category:Reusable space launch systems

Propose renaming Category:Shuttle-derived launch vehicles to Category:Shuttle-derived space launch vehicles OR Category:Shuttle-derived space launch systems

Propose renaming Category:Partially reusable launch vehicles to Category:Partially reusable space launch vehicles OR Category:Partially reusable space launch systems

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contested speedy. Parent category is at Category:Space launch vehicles, not Category:Launch vehicles, therefore the categories that are subcats of it should match its name if possible. If "...systems" is chosen as the preferred naming format for this tree, the parent cat and other subcats currently at "...vehicles" will be subsequently speedied, but "...vehicles" is nominator's preference, at least. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename to "space launch" versions. I'm not convinced all of these are vehicles; some seem like systems for launching launch vehicles. But they all are used in space.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 13:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• So, keep their current suffixes as is, but add "space" to the name, basically? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• That would be my (admittedly not very well-informed) preference.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• That would be OK with me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Yes, OK, but is their derivation ancestry relevant to an encyclopaedia, I don't think so. Petebutt ( talk) 10:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC) (moved from category page by The Bushranger _{One ping only}) 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: listify to Wikipedia:Milestone articles.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Milestone Wikipedia articles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Trivial and arbitrary inclusion criteria. Cf. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_27#Category:Wikipedia.27s_oldest_articles. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete not useful Curb Chain ( talk) 07:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep or "Articleify" - Wikipedia is not paper, and this is something that should be kept around for historical value. That said, it might be better to be an article, than a category. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

It may be better, but would it be notable? In any case, such milestones are not useful for wikieditors. Curb Chain ( talk) 18:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

WP:USELESS isn't an argument for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete keep the information somewhere, perhaps Wikipedia:Milestone Wikipedia articles. JORGENEV 09:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but put the article in the category, not the talk page. I think it is an interesting point for the reader to see that the article they are reading is the millionth article or whatever, and then go to the category to see other landmark articles. It is not arbitrary and some at least of these landmarks were widely noted in the press around the world. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Listify into project space, per Jorgenev. If this is kept, perhaps it should be a hidden category? 70.49.126.190 ( talk) 04:17, 13 October 2011 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Mason marked structures ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As currently structured, I don't see this as defining. Of the two articles in the category, one only mentions this fact on an image caption. It currently is for any mason's mark so it is simply a grouping of like named marks. Even if limited to marks of Freemasonry, it still may not be defining. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete Appears to be more of a tourist guide than than anything; one gathers from the text that on any structure of a certain age, the masons were likely to leave their marks somewhere, and this is really only listing buildings where they can more or less conveniently seen. Mangoe ( talk) 15:05, 12 October 2011 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Natib Qadish ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The parent entry fails WP:N and is now at AfD. This category should not exist. Griswaldo ( talk) 02:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The parent article was deleted by unanimous vote three years ago [ [1]], and the current reincarnation is in the process with the same results so far [ [2]]. Pure self-promoting OR of a clearly non-notable religious "movement". The sources provided are misused in that they refer to an ancient religious concept, and not to the subject of the present article, which is a modern recreation. Nothing on Google except the movements own website. Zero independent coverage of any kind. In fact, zero evidence of any kind whatsoever that the movement has any following except for the creator of the website. Clearly fails notability requirements, and there is no hope that adequate sourcing will ever be found. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 01:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• KEEP Here's some established websites (some with publications) that feature Tess Dawson, author of the first book on Natib Qadish, and leading spokesperson for the religion. Bye the way, I'm a man that lives in the Pacific Northwest, and Tess Dawson is a woman that lives in California. -- Camocon ( talk) 18:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Patheos: Interview with Tess Dawson: Qadish and author of Whisper of Stone
• Democratic Underground: Interview with Tess Dawson, Canaanite pagan, part I
• Deeper Down The Rabbit Hole: Guest Tess Dawson covers the Canaanite religion, including her book on Canaanite magic
• Pagan Writers Community: Featured Author Interview – Tess Dawson
• Witches&Pagans #19 - The Faerie Issue

Tess Dawson will soon publish her third book on the ancient Canaanite religion and Natib Qadish (it's modern reincarnation). Natib Qadish has been featured in numerous Neopagan websites and publications. But still you claim that there's no reliable sources to be found. Apparently, this religion needs to be kosher approved by a rabbi, or blessed by the pope himself. What kind of "reliable sources" are you looking for? -- Camocon ( talk) 18:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply

All of there sources derive 100% of their information on the movement from Tess Dawson herself. There is zero investigative reporting, and absolutely no evidence or reason to believe that any of them conducts any fact checking. All of those sources combined could be used to source only that Tess Dawson wrote a book about the movement, and possibly that she is a known figure in the occult community (even that would be pushing it). They cannot even be used to source Dawson's statement that the movement has any other members besides her (and possibly her cat). Dawson's statement that there are other members is unreliable to the extreme, and even if we take her at her word, there is no indication that the movement has enough members to establish notability in accordance with WP:NOTE. The only source that contains any appreciable amount of material not derived solely from Dawson her self is the first one. And even that source clearly states that all she had heard about the movement were "vague rumors" and that she had never met a member of the movement before. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the "group's" notability. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 19:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply

@Dominus Vobisdu: The "vague rumors" you alluded to was actually said by Galina Krasskova in her opening dialog, before the Tess Dawson interview. Galina Krasskova said- "A few years ago, I began hearing vague references to a Reconstructionist Paganism that focused on the Canaanite and Phoenician Deities". Apparently, you didn't read past the first sentence. You said- "Dawson's statement that the movement has any other members besides her (and possibly her cat)". That misquote of yours about Tess Dawson is highly misleading, because she never said anything about her (and her cat) being the only followers of Natib Qadish. You are twisting the truth to fit your own agenda. -- Camocon ( talk) 20:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete as in my opinion both the article and portal which are the only two members of this category are non-notable. I guess this discussion could await the outcome of the deletion discussions now under way for them Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete There are clearly not enough articles to warrant a category. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• delete Only one real article, and in any case it should be deleted if/when the main article is deleted. Mangoe ( talk) 10:17, 17 October 2011 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Tertiary Care Hospitals in Pakistan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete There's no parent category Category:Tertiary care hospitals or Category:Tertiary referral hospitals. This is probably due in large part to the fact that the term doesn't have a precise definition. Pichpich ( talk) 02:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete – contents already adequately categorised. Occuli ( talk) 09:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - main category Category:Hospitals in Pakistan is not so large that it needs splitting by whether it receives referrals from primary care (secondary care hospital) or from secondary care (tertiary care hospital). This would be an odd split to make as well given that there is considerable overlap. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 07:10, 18 October 2011 (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/merged to Category:Buildings and structures in Multan. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Places in Multan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete The category intends to group together all things that can be characterized as a "place". But the term is quite vague and the structure throughout Wikipedia is to have on one hand a subcategory of Category:Buildings and structures and on the other hand categories such as Category:Populated places, Category:Visitor attractions, Category:Parks and so on for other "places". Pichpich ( talk) 02:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:Buildings and structures in Multan as these all seem to qualify. Occuli ( talk) 08:44, 12 October 2011 (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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Pagan Studies scholars to Category:Pagan studies scholars

Nominator's rationale: Rename The simplest solution is to simply drop the capital S in "Studies". But another possibility is to rename to Category:Neopagan studies scholars or Category:Scholars of Neopaganism. I'm not entirely sure what's best though I have a slight preference for Scholars of Neopaganism. Pichpich ( talk) 02:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

With all respect Pichpich, I think that renaming it to "Neopagan studies scholars" would be a big mistake. Wikipedia editors (myself included) who have been working on the topic of contemporary Paganism have agreed to use such a term over "Neopaganism", which is rarely used in either the academic literature on the subject or amongst Wiccans, Druids, Heathens etc themselves. Moreover I have never encountered the term "Neopagan studies" before, whilst "Pagan studies" is a recognised and widely used term in the literature; see for instance academic publishing company AltaMira Press's "Pagan Studies Series" the or peer-reviewed journal "The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies". For this reason, my vote is for the current title to be kept, although I agree that "Studies" should be replaced with a lower-case "studies" for grammatical reasons. {{ Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)}} reply

I'm perfectly ok with simply dropping the capital S if "pagan studies" is the most common terminology. Pichpich ( talk) 15:25, 14 October 2011 (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: no consensus.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Henri Coandă ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale - Delete: This category doesn't really seem necessary, including only the article on Coanda himself, the effect he described, two aircraft types designed by him...and an aircraft completely unrelated to Coanda aside from its making use of the Coanda effect in its design. All but the last can be links from his main article; the last shouldn't be in the category at all, and overall this seems like a bit of WP:OC. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete Eponymous categories are discouraged. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep Why are eponymous categories discouraged? We have a group of notable articles, three of them eponymous, and what links them is Henri Coandă. And after all, he invented the jet engine, you know ;-) Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Even leaving aside the eponymony, why is this category better than linking to the related articles in Henri Coandă itself? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Because categories allow for declarative markup (I wish to join a set), not imperative (Here is the hand-coded list of the set of members). With categories, editors mark up the members, not the encompassing list article. This isn's specific to Coanda, it's a MediaWiki (or even broader) topic - doing it this way just works better, especially when categories are growing unpredictably. Declarative markup is far easier to maintain in such a case. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep makes sense to have an eponymous category as we do for Edison. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 02:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete not really that notable to have a eponymous category. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep — the articles are linked semantically as well as eponymously. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 22:29, 18 October 2011 (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.