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. Only Nicholas Tarling was in the category, not enough for a list. ( NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Tarling ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I don't see any reason why should people be categorized based on their surname. User<Svick>. Talk() ; 23:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete We categorize by families, not by surnames. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Listify Tarling (surname) -- I agree with JPL and nom's reasoning. The usual practice is to have a list of people with the surname, a sort of dab-page. In this case, there is none. A WP search indicates that there are a few more to go on it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:12, 30 October 2013 (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:Rolex Sports Car Series drivers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Grand-Am drivers to Category:Grand-Am Road Racing drivers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand title to match name of the series. Grand Am is ambiguous and it is easy to miss the dash in the title here. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• weak oppose Not so much because I think that the current name is hugely superior, but because (a) I do not find the name significantly ambiguous, and (b) this would set a precedent for renaming all the other driver categories. Seyasirt ( talk) 03:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Standard naming is to rename to match the article unless there is a significant reason not to. So not seeing it as ambiguous is not a strong reason to not follow the naming convention. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Rolex Sports Car Series drivers - This is in fact the actual intent of the category, as this is the premier (and one could argue, only professional and, therefore, defining) series that Grand-Am sanctions (you could make a case for the Continental Tire Challenge Series, but that would be needed as a seperate category). Anyway, as this is the actual intent of the category, this should be the target; "Grand Am Road Racing" is the sanctioning body, not the series. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I have no objection to this option. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:00, 3 November 2013 (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 to Category:Falkland Islands Councillors 2005–09. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Falkland Islands MLAs 2005–09 to Category:Falkland Islands MLAs 2009

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands was created on 1 January 2009. Prior to this the legislature was the Legislative Council of the Falkland Islands and its members were known as Councillors, not MLAs. Philip Stevens ( talk) 21:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Rename but to Category:Falkland Islands councillors 2005–09, if that was their title for the majority of the period. A headnote should explain that they became MLAs in 2009 (if that is correct). We do not normally allow categories for councillors, but in this case they were the only legislative body for the islands, so that in this case it should be allowed. However, in a polity with such a small population, being on the governing body ought not per se to confer notability. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • This category already exists ( Category:Falkland Islands Councillors 2005–09). -- Philip Stevens ( talk) 15:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Falkland Islands Councillors 2005–09. These categories are clear duplicates, and there is no need for both. Since we have to choose one title or the other, best to follow Peterkingiron's suggestion and use the title which applied for the majority of their period in office. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:27, 5 November 2013 (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) 20:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting - Category:Public philosophers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The concepts of "public philosophy" and "public philosophers" are undefined, and I suspect nearly meaningless. In any case, they appear to be neologisms. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 20:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I just created this category a few hours ago and have yet to populate it. It is based on Category:Public historians which is a category for academics who write books that popularize a discipline, for a general audience, not for other academics in their field. They often are scholars who work outside the system of higher education. It falls under the notion of "public intellectual", scholars who write for books for a popular audience. So, for example, Ayn Rand is not only a philosopher but what I would call a public intellectual or philosopher because she wrote books for a larger audience than academics.

As far as defining it, well, please give me a day or two to discuss this with WikiProject Philosophy and see if they accept or reject the new category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per FreeKnowledgeCreator. Category:Public historians is poorly populated, although there's at least an article Public history to give some idea of what this term means.

There's no sourced guidelines:

• no
  Main article: Public philosophy
• no
  Main article: Public philosophers
• does it fit the gist of the definitions in " public intellectual"?
• have any of the people in Category:Public philosophers, self-identified as a public philosopher, and do reliable sources identify this people this way? Is it a professional category of some kind that's generally recognized? Are there professional journals where these public philosophers publish, do universities have departments of "Public philosophy" etc. If so I'd change my mind. The problems to me seems to be that all sorts of categories will pop up as "Public (whatever) if this becomes a trend. Just my view. I very well be wrong.;) Soranoch ( talk) 21:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator, its a recipe for argument and meaningless anyway ---- Snowded ^TALK 05:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is putting the horse before the cart. Until we have a clear definition of the term we can not categorize people by it. Wikipedia is also not the place to create new terms, which this feels a lot like. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  This isn't a new term. For example, see the results here. I have no strong opinion on whether it is suitable for a category, but It isn't a neologism. -- RL0919 ( talk) 20:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Note: I struck part of my comment that I changed my mind about; see my "Keep" comment below. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete There is no good way to define this category. We have Category:Philosophy writers which should suffice, but is also being considered for deletion, and it looks like it will. So this situation is a big mess. Greg Bard ( talk) 20:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge somewhere. Category:Philosophy writers might do, but my suggestion on that CFD was that the contents should be distributed into other categories,prior to deletion. The same should apply here. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Having looked into this more, I believe an article on Public philosophy will be easy to support and have started a userspace draft of one, which I expect will be in mainspace within a few days. I can't speak for all possible entries in the category, but I was very quickly able to find good quality sources for Ayn Rand and Martha Nussbaum being called "public philosopher", and there are others, such as Jane Addams and Walter Terence Stace who are called this in their articles but haven't been put in the category yet. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  I was able to find sources pretty quickly to get a viable article going, so I've moved it to mainspace already. The arguments above based on there not being a main article to explain the meaning of the category are no longer valid. -- RL0919 ( talk) 22:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Public Philosophy is an action performed by Philosophers. It is not in itself a categorical description of a type of philosopher. Arzel ( talk) 22:49, 1 November 2013 (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. ( NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 24.13.244.169 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Empty cat. GregJackP  Boomer! 20:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination. Category was created in 2007 but remains empty. Soranoch ( talk) 17:34, 29 October 2013 (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) 19:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Moheener Ghoraguli ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - after creating and relocating members to a members category, I believe that the contents are insufficient for us to need a category for the group. There is an existing template and the articles are linked together through text. See WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:OC#SMALL. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 02:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination. Soranoch ( talk) 21:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- The problem is not with the existence of this category, but with that of two sub-cats, one for albums and another for members; in some cases there may be a third for songs. Might it not be better to upmerge the subcats? I suspect that will raise a howl that the albums cat is also in a wider albums cat. There is no obvious answer to this. Similarly the members will also be in musician categories, with a separate tree. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• There is really nothing more defining of an album than the artist who recorded it, so trying to dismantle that category tree is a non-starter. Similarly for the members of most musical groups their membership is probably their most defining characteristic and the primary source of their notability, so again a non-starter. The better approach IMHO is to try to develop consensus that a rote counting of sub-categories is not the way to determine whether a category named for the band is needed. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 12:19, 31 October 2013 (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) 19:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:The Sound of Arrows ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:OC#SMALL. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 02:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom and comments of Jerry Pepsi Soranoch ( talk) 22:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above and numerous precedent. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 06:44, 1 November 2013 (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) 19:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Uncle Tupelo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:OC#SMALL. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 02:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom and Jerry Pepsi's comments above. Soranoch ( talk) 22:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above comments and numerous precedent. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 06:44, 1 November 2013 (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: do not rename as proposed, but merge Category:Documentary films about Michael Moore to Category:Films about Michael Moore. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Works about Michael Moore to Category:Works critical of Michael Moore
• Propose renaming Category:Films about Michael Moore to Category:Films critical of Michael Moore
• Propose renaming Category:Documentary films about Michael Moore to Category:Documentary films critical of Michael Moore

Nominator's rationale: Would it not be more accurate to describe what this category really groups, which are solely works that criticize or ridicule Moore, rather than neutrally explore or 'biographize' him or his work? We do have some other categories which use "critical of," for this reason. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Meh - neutral is better than non-neutral and I don't see a net gain in introducing the WP:POV-laden "critical of" phrase. Other "critical of" categories should probably also be neutralized but that is beyond the scope of the nomination. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 02:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - I personally despise the fellow, but personal opinions are irrelevant on Wikipedia - policy is. And policy is WP:NPOV. It's entirely possible there are in fact works that provide a positive view of him, in which case we'd either need to re-rename or create new, small categories. Best to maintain neutrality in the first place, because, critical or not, the current names are, in fact, correct, and also more specific (a work about any number of other things could be critical of him without being defined as being about him). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - per WP:NPOV and comments by The Bushranger. Soranoch ( talk) 22:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Bushranger makes a really good point. Not only would the new name make us have to decide what exactly is "critical" (which works a lot more with philosophies and religions than people), but it would create small categories and might invite inclusion of works that have only a passing mention of Moore. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- WE have too developed a tree for the content. As far as I can see the works are all films. Delete Works cat. I see no reason to split films and documentary films. Hence merge documentary films to films. That leaves us with films criticising Moore to contrast with films by him. Keep films category: with the present title, it could include a film by someone else supporting his views. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply

:* I'm good with this merger/deletion scheme so long as the documentary films remain somewhere within the documentaries categorization scheme. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 13:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Actually, strike that, there's one book in the Works category so everything isn't a film. If that one item is deemed insufficient to sustain the category then go ahead and delete it, though. Still cool with merging the docs and films category, maintaining the docs in the documentary structure. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 20:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• I'd be okay with that, as well. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:42, 30 October 2013 (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.