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.
Delete. Even our article about art film defines the term as "a serious, independent film, aimed at a niche market rather than a mass market audience", which means it's an incredibly subjective classification rather than a neutral and defining one — it basically encompasses every single film that you're likely to have to go to a repertory cinema or a film festival, instead of your local multiplex, to actually see, which represents an unmaintainably large percentage of all films that exist. It also depends on where you're looking at it from, too: in North America, Fassbinder films certainly play in "art houses" — but I'm pretty damn sure he's not nearly as niche in Germany. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all If there's one film genre category that is subject to multiple issues around WP:OR, the it is this one. I've lost count of the number of times this has been added to an article, without any sourcing, and then edit-warring taking place. I don't see any net gain to having this category tree. LugnutsFire Walk with Me07:41, 15 April 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.
Nominator's rationale:Non-defining intersection of two unrelated traits. As always, Wikipedia does not create "people who happen to be both X and Y" categories for every combination of X and Y that happens to describe two or more people -- to justify this category, it would need to be possible to actually create an article about "LGBT atheism" as a specific and identifiable and noteworthy type of atheism, not just to find a handful of queerfolk who happen to be atheists. And even if this were to be kept for some reason I can't fathom, it would still have to be renamed to ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:LGBT atheists for MOS:CAPS reasons anyway. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that the fact that it wasn't fully/properly parented when I first found it was a deletion criterion in and of itself — what I said is that because anybody can add any category to any other category at any time, the fact that it is parented now isn't in and of itself a keep criterion either. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a reason for singling out though (even while nominator does not mention it), in the sense that a number of religions are or were at odds with LGBT, and people combining a religion with LGBT were quite extraordinary, which may be a good reason to keep those categories. That does not apply to atheism though. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing odd about it whatsoever. It's possible to write actual articles about the relationships between the LGBT community and organized religions — LGBT in Christianity, Homosexuality and Judaism, Buddhism and sexual orientation, Hinduism and LGBT topics, and on and so forth, are all articles that actually exist about significant and noteworthy and reliably sourceable topics. Per WP:CATEGRS, the justification for an "LGBT X" intersection such as this, always requires the ability to write an actual article about what makes "LGBT X" a notable thing. Such an article cannot be written about the intersection of LGBT with atheism — because for one thing, atheism is not an organized system of belief, so it has no official position either way on LGBT people (and no movement of LGBT people trying to push for change in the official position it doesn't have) to write about. Atheism is not a religion, it's simply a lack of religious belief, so it has no pro or anti gay tenets for atheists to either subscribe to or reject. So there's literally nothing that can be said about the relationship between LGBT and atheism beyond the cursory "there are some LGBT people who happen to identify as atheists, the end" — but the justification for a CATEGRS intersection requires the ability to write an actual article about that intersection as a topic, not just a list of names. And I did already say this in my nomination: "to justify this category, it would need to be possible to actually create an article about "LGBT atheism" as a specific and identifiable and noteworthy type of atheism". I know you've decided to automatically oppose everything I say on principle of me being me, but you don't get to accuse me of not giving reasons when I gave clear reasons that are very clearly consistent with CATEGRS. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Technical Comment I always find it frustrating that Wikipedia doesn't have more dynamic searches so you can click on the categories for LGBT people, Atheists, from London and get the results you want without having to have CFD decide whether that intersection is meaningful to other readers. That's how most database searches work. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Delete Per WP:OCEGRS. I was firmly in the "Keep" camp because I expected that people would leave the religion of their childhood because they didn't welcome LGBT embers but then I clicked on the articles. One is only inferred to be atheist because he is a communist and two were raised Jewish but no longer practice but their reasons aren't given. The article for Marlene Dietrich (last paragraph here) is the only one to give a reason for atheism and it wasn't related to sexual identity. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @RevelationDirect. Not a valid diffusion ot intersection category. I also suggest having a look at Category:LGBT Wiccans, where after hand-picking a few of the 11 members the link between sexual and religious orientations was thin at most. Place Clichy (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an intersection widely recognised as unique, per WP:OCEGRS. Religious LGBT people are notable because religions are widely perceived to conflict with non-straight orientations. There is no inherent or apparent conflict between atheism and LGBT. feminist (talk) 11:27, 25 April 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 Alabama subcategory only has 1 article with limited room for growth, there are no other state-level subcategories, and the target national category only has 5 loose articles. Breaking up those 6 articles by state won't aid navigation. (The one article, Alabama Stage and Screen Hall of Fame, is already well-categorized in other Alabama museum categories so no dual upmerge is needed.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:26, 14 April 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.
Fort Charlotte, Mobile was a French fort in the Lousiana territory that is now a museum in Alabama. No conceptual objection the category but it only has that main article and I can't think of a potential second article, let alone a fifth. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:16, 14 April 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.
Oppose Some people in what is now Northern Ireland may well have self-identified as British, but for most of the 18th century they were not citizens of the political entity known as the Kingdom of Great Britain. They were, instead, citizens (subjects?) of the Kingdom of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant because most UK editors regard "British" as a demonym for the state much as "French" pertains to the French state. However, while the territory of the French state has remained relatively stable in modern history, the same cannot be said for the UK. So there is a tendency among UK editors to "annex" parts of other Islands to the UK that were distinct entities in previous centuries. That's why the 18th century British people category contains entries for people unconnected to the UK at that time. While they may have been subjects of the Crown, they were still Irish (i.e. not "British"). It is incorrect to take predecessor states as automatic parts of the current state at ahistorical times. This inaccuracy would only be reinforced if the current nomination passed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I looked in 18th-century British people there were plenty of Irish entrants. Has there been a clearout? Anyway, have striken my vote. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. I very much doubt people in any part of Ireland were identifying as "British". This is much more the result of a reaction to 19th century Irish Nationalism. Northern Ireland was not a separate entity until about 1920. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along the lines of Marcocapelle. For anybody caring enough about whom Britishness was or was not applicable in the 18th century, they already know enough about the topic not to be confused with the proposed solution. Place Clichy (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Query Does Marco have an actual proposal up there? I see some musings, not a solution. Let this proposal die, then let a new one come forward. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:24, 24 April 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 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.
Nominator's rationale: merge, we usually do not have century categories for countries that did not exist yet. Azerbaijan was part of various Middle Eastern states until around 1800 when it was conquered by Russia from Iran. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support With notable Polish exceptions, the nom is correct to state that "we usually do not have century categories for countries that did not exist yet". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:45, 14 April 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.
Oppose that is a common misconception, but erroneous nonetheless. The Fatimid Caliphate originated in what is now Tunisia (Ifriqiya), and spread over much of the Maghreb and Sicily during its first sixty years. Even after it became "centered in Egypt", it retained extensive territories in the Levant. So not every event in the Fatimid Caliphate is also an event in Egypt, which is the rationale behind this category. Constantine ✍ 09:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - per Constantine, I'm not really familiar with this area of history so I cannot say with absolute certainty if this nomination is justified or not. From the article Fatimid Caliphate though it appeared the kingdom extended well beyond modern-day Egypt. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:41, 19 April 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 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.
It is a well established consensus against the usage of categories regarding the religious viewpoints of fictional individuals (see 1st discussion and 2nd discussion). While atheism and agnosticism are not a religion per se, the same logic applies. Looking through the numerous articles in this category, I could find very few that said anything on the fictional character's faith or lack there of. Also a good chunk characters are from comedy series, where a one-off joke about religion or God is used as a supposed reliable citation for the character's views. In the odd case that the fictional character's atheist/agnostic/secular views are a defining component, the deletion of this category would still not be a great loss as there are cats such as Category:Atheism in television which would probably be more appropriate. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:43, 14 April 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.
Category:Leeds Rhinos Hall of Fame inductees[edit]
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 Leeds Rhinos are a professional rugby team/club in England and this award was started in 2017, although the players are from much earlier. Typically, specific team HOFs have a display case or wall somewhere in the home stadium but I wasn't able to confirm that in this case. While all the articles mention playing for the Rhinos (and are categorized as such) most don't mention this award at all and none in the lede so this doesn't seem defining. These team-specific award have become nearly universal in many leagues: the first two Super League club articles I clicked on included Warrington Wolves#Hall of Fame inductees and Halifax R.L.F.C.#Halifax RLFC Hall of Fame. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:07, 14 April 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 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.
Nominator's rationale: Populated by only one page: Virgin Mountain. I can think of no other possible entries fitting this category, and the category's scope as a whole seems vague. ToThAc (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having only a single entry doesn't mean more can't be added in the future. If the scope is too vague, it should be clarified instead of deleted. If the category is simply not useful, then it should be deleted. Danielklein (talk) 01:51, 14 April 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 18#Category:Obsolete templates
