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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (G3). MER-C 09:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:American City Manual 1965 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support, the one entry is not even an article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Apparently, there is no such publication. I have not managed to turn up any evidence of it, either. Uncle G ( talk) 07:15, 22 August 2019 (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. MER-C 15:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Sikh Bollywood Actresses ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. Softlavender ( talk) 11:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support, we do not even have Category:Sikh actresses. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:EGRS. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:30, 21 August 2019 (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. MER-C 15:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Marketing terminology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Advertising terminology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Like most terminology categories, these categories hardly contain any articles about terminology (i.e. about the use of language) but instead they contain particular terms that each belong and usually already are in a content category. Terminology categories like these are usually deleted, see e.g. the list in this discussion and this list. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support, but it might be a good idea to check for articles (e.g. Clutter (advertising)) that should be upmerged and/or have the lede sentence reworded. DexDor ^(talk) 20:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Fair enough, the closer may put these categories on WP:CFDWM for manual checking before deletion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:05, 23 August 2019 (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. MER-C 15:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:School of Canon Law to Category:Catholic University of America School of Canon Law

Nominator's rationale: It's not my field, but I doubt that the CUA's School of Canon Law is the only such school in the world... Randykitty ( talk) 10:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• It is my field, and actually, it is the only such school in the world. The technical term for an academic department of canon law is "faculty of canon law", not "school". Catholic University of America uses "School" because of the Anglo-American university "School" system, "School of Law" name convention, etc. Every other faculty of canon law is called Faculty of Canon Law, Institute of Canon Law, or some such similar name (cf. Pontificia Università Gregoriana Facoltà di Diritto Canonico, Canon Law Faculties and Institutes). "School of Canon Law" is truly a title of the faculty of canon law, just as "Columbus School of Law" is the title of the CUA school of secular law. It is not a generic term for any faculty of canon law, like "school of law" would be a generic term for any American secular legal educational institution. Therefore, I strongly oppose the renaming, as it is unnecessary given the stated reason of the nominator, since there is only one School of Canon Law in the world, and it would be improper to rename it, since "School of Canon Law" is its title. If additional pages on faculties and institutes of canon law are written on the English Wikipedia, we can create a "Faculties of canon law" category, under which " Category:School of Canon Law" will be subcategorized. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 15:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose, to keep alignment with the article title. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment Following the same reasoning as for the cat, the article should be renamed, too. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Rename -- It should not have a name implying it is universal, when it is in fact part of a particular university. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom and Peterkingiron. Oculi ( talk) 10:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Noting that both WP:COP#N and WP:CATDEF apply. (non-admin closure) -- Trialpears ( talk) 19:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Lisburn Cricket Club players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We do not categorise club cricketers, only those who have played for senior representative club sides at first-class, List A or T20 level, which are levels Lisburn have not played at. Playing for a minor club is non-defining per WP:COP#N. I am also nominating the following related category for the same reason:

• Category:Instonians cricketers

StickyWicket ( talk) 10:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Oppose Perfectly legitimate category. It totally irrelevant what status the clubs have played at. If there is enough articles to form a category than that's fine. Nominator has also removed players from the category "Irish cricketers" based on his nonsense definition. Djln Djln ( talk) 16:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment. Except it isn't. The cricket project doesn't categorise non first-class/List A/T20 teams, which is why Category:Players in English domestic cricket by team, Category:Players in New Zealand domestic cricket by team, Category:Players in Indian domestic cricket by team all contain teams that play at the above level, otherwise such categories would be full of club cricket teams where there is no definition between what is considered a notable team per WP:CRIN. As mentioned, they fail WP:COP#N because they are non-defining, they do not make the subject notable. The cricket project has categorised like this since 2004 and if you wish to change it, lobby for that change. Until then, players only get cricket categories for playing a format recognised as major cricket, and teams only get a category if they have played matches recognised as a form of major cricket. And "nonsense definition" isn't a reason to object. StickyWicket ( talk) 22:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note. Precedent also set here. StickyWicket ( talk) 22:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment. Does a precedent involving just two editors really count. I don't think so. Djln Djln ( talk) 01:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Precedent does not exist because was less attention on that case than on this case. Lurking shadow ( talk) 09:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep unless you can reduce this category to one entry; and WP:COP#N does not disallow categorization as a Lisburn Cricket Club player if that activity was important for what they are notable for(which definitely applies to international players coming from that cricket club) Lurking shadow ( talk) 09:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment but they are not notable for being Lisburn Cricket Club players, they're notable for playing for other teams in line with WP:CRIN, which means we categorise according to match/club status, and have done since 2004. StickyWicket ( talk) 12:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment. Also, not a single international cricketer is categorised by any non-first-class/List A/Twenty20 teams they played for, e.g. Joe Root isn't categorised as a Sheffield Collegiate Cricket Club cricketer, or Sachin Tendulkar isn't cateogrised by any minor club he played for in Mumbai. The current CRIC way of categorising is fully in line with how cricket rates the importance of matches by status. StickyWicket ( talk) 13:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, if there is significant coverage in reliable sources about their activities at these clubs then don't leave it out. If that results in the category having few people left, delete the category. Otherwise, keep it. How about that? Lurking shadow ( talk) 19:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- I see a problem with this category, because (as far as I can see from the Lisburn Cricket Club is not a fully professional club. We have a similar problem with clubs in the 5th and 6th tiers (and below) in English football. Sampling the articles suggested that most of the players categorised were notable for playing in other sports or for Ireland national team. Accordingly Merge back to Irish cricketers. I suspect this is organised on an all-Ireland basis so that this should not be split between NI & RoI. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep The issue is not is the thing a gain of notability, but is it significant to those participating. The club a sports person played with is almost always notable. For example, most people who played college sports and are notable and notable fror professional or olympic actions, not college ones, however we categorize virtually all these people by their college involvement. It may be a bit more questionable putting Larry Echo Hawk in the BYU Cougars football players cat, since his notability is as a lawyer, politician, head of the BIA, and general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not in any way as a sportsman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:30, 14 September 2019 (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.