Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 20



Category:West Coast of the United States-related lists
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 9%23Category:West Coast of the United States-related lists

Category:German military personnel killed in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

 * 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, merging list article of those killed to Category:German military personnel of the War in Afghanistan (2001–14) (and also Category:German military personnel killed in action and Category:Military personnel killed in the War in Afghanistan (2001–14)). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting german military personnel killed in the war in afghanistan (2001–present)


 * Nominator's rationale: There are no actual people listed in this category, only the article about such death. Therefore, such a category is pointless. P p p er y  (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:German military personnel of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) which is up for speedy renaming to give a 2014 close date. This category only have the eponymous article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:German military personnel of the War in Afghanistan (2001–14) per previous comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:German military personnel of the War in Afghanistan (2001–14) per previous comments. No actual biographical articles are included here. Dimadick (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Category:LGBT opposition to same-sex marriage

 * 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: split as proposed by Laurel Lodged. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:LGBT opposition to same-sex marriage to Category:LGBT criticism of marriage
 * Nominator's rationale: As it stands, the category is highly misleading. Apart from a few LGBT conservatives (which should probably be purged or split apart), most others criticize the concept of marriage or its legal privilege in whole. Arguing from a left-wing position, some of them might be critical of the LGBT community's focus on marriage equality, but clearly don't advocate denying LGBT people a same-sex marriage, and aren't affiliated with conservatism, as the parent category suggests. PanchoS (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Let a new category - Category:LGBT criticism of marriage - be created for those who oppose marriage in general as well as same-sex marriage in particular. It would be the parent of Category:LGBT opposition to same-sex marriage. Purge Category:LGBT opposition to same-sex marriage of those who are not opposesed to same-sex marriage. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We're actually not so far apart – you're asking the category to be split, which I suggested being open for. So yes, I'm fine with that proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, but add parentage per Lauren Lodged, and purge of individuals When we are categorizing by a movement (LGBT, not LGBT's) opposing/favoring XYZ, we cannot have individuals otherwise think of the clutter at a possible Category:Christian opposition to same-sex marriage where literally thousands of politicians, entertainers, or other public figures are (or were - these categories are permanent, lest they be "current" and trivial ones) on record for both Christianity and opposition to same-sex marriage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't really get your point, but as long as others do, that doesn't really matter. --PanchoS (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Purge if Kept The individual biography articles shouldn't be here since we're defining people by their stance on a single issue where that doesn't seem defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support nomination + purging, oppose splitting. The category currently contains (1) articles about a radical LGBT movement that is against marriage in general hence also against same-sex marriage and (2) a few LGBT individuals who are against same-sex marriage specifically. As we usually don't categorize individual people by their opinions on a single issue, only the first set of articles would survive in a category, which is exactly according the original nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Anti-marriage and opposition to Gay marriage are two different topics. I suggest having both categories, for both topics are noteworthy. 186.29.123.214 (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Category:Pages automatically checked for accidental language links

 * 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:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links, but I'll hold off on making the change until has a chance to update the bot. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 17:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Pages automatically checked for accidental language links to Category:Pages automatically checked for accidental category and language links
 * Nominator's rationale: AnomieBOT will automatically add colons to accidental categories on such pages also. P p p er y  (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – I have noticed this earlier but didn't bother nominating it for renaming. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't Care But note that the bot will have to be updated at the same time the category is changed on all pages using it. Anomie⚔ 02:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. What if the bot is later changed to fix more types of problems on these pages (e.g. fixing incorrectly formatted links to users or to templates)? - the category name would then become ridiculous. A better solution might be something like Category:Wikipedia discussion pages automatically checked for link errors. DexDor(talk) 05:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Those probably wouldn't need opt-in. But I can think of another one: accidental file links. So maybe just rename it to Category:Pages automatically checked for accidental links – nyuszika7h (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer "Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links (a bot can't tell whether something is accidental or not). Another option would bee Category:Pages at which incorrect links may be automatically corrected (more precise, but rather verbose). DexDor(talk) 22:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links" would also work for me, I guess. nyuszika7h (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that all of your descriptions give too little information. If the bot is later changed to fix accidental file links, then the category can be renamed to Category:Pages to be automatically checked for accidental category, language, and file links. You are crossing the bridge before you get to it. P p p er y  (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, is right, so let's just go with the original nomination for now. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with using the category text (rather than the category name) to define the details of what the bot does with the category? DexDor(talk) 18:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ... and what's wrong with having a descriptive category name? Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links suggests to me that the bot fixes wikilinks that point to the wrong target, which is obviously something a bot can't do. P p p er y  (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Pages automatically checked for incorrect links is best, since as noted above: (1) it includes more than language links, (2) it may include more than what it's including now, and we shouldn't have to bother with another CFD, (3) and the proposed name describes it reasonably well, it's significantly shorter than anything might conceivably encompass everything. Using the category text to define it will be unambiguous, plus (1) it's more easily changed than the category name, and (2) descriptive text atop a category doesn't affect relevant articles, but an all-encompassing category name will be long enough to be unwieldy.  Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pages automatically checked for incorrect links summarizes the purpose of this category concisely, and there's always the theoretical possibility that more incorrect link types will get added at some point. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Category:Academics from Tacoma, Washington

 * 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) 22:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Academics from Tacoma, Washington to Category:People from Tacoma, Washington
 * Also propose merging- Category:Chefs from Tacoma, Washington to Category:People from Tacoma, Washington and
 * Category:Physicians from Tacoma, Washington to Category:People from Tacoma, Washington
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All have three or less entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep SMALLCAT is a rationale for categories with "no potential for growth" which does not apply to these growing categories about living people. Plus the generally accepted minimum for a category is three, which the chefs category already meets. I easily found enough entries to populate the other two categories with 3-4 entries. - Brianhe (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree that smallcat does not apply to these cats as they do have potential for growth, and thanks to for further populating the cats. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In the case of the academics, it is an irrelevant intersection by location (see WP:OCLOCATION). There is no indication that their notability as academics is related to their being from Tacoma. Their academic notability may be connected with being American academics, or with being academics at a particular university, or in a particular discipline; but not to being academics from Tacoma. Regardless of the size of the category, irrelevant intersections are a very bad type of category. Chefs may be notable for being at a particular location, though many move around a lot, so the precise location may not be WP:DEFINING. However, the only by-state sub-category of Category:American chefs is the Washington category, also created by Brianhe, so I am unsure whether even it is appropriate. The absence of an existing by-state category should have prompted Brianhe to question whether a finer division was really appropriate. In total, there are currently 543 pages in Category:American chefs and its subcats, of which 140 are notable as TV chefs, and hence probably not defined by location. If, despite those caveats, it is considered appropriate to subcat the American chefs geographically, then a by-state split would produce an average only 10 per state. Going to a finer level than that simply impedes navigation. Per WP:OCLOCATION, I see no evidence that any of these physicians are defined by being from Tacoma rather than from elsewhere in WA. Furthermore, Category:Physicians from Washington (state) currently contains only 5 pages, plus the 4 in this sub-cat. Splitting a total of 9 articles in this way just impedes navigation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge all, tho for difft reasons in each case.
 * Academics: merge to Category:People from Tacoma, Washington.
 * Chefs merge to Category:People from Tacoma, Washington and Category:Chefs from Washington (state).
 * Physicians merge to Category:Physicians from Washington (state) and Category:People from Tacoma, Washington.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note Each of these 3 categories was created with only one parent: Category:People from Tacoma, Washington.  That meant that, for example, the physicians were not in any wider category of physicians, the chefs were cut off from other chefs etc.  The creators (Brianhe, Coolabahapple) should take care when creating new categories that they they are subcats of all relevant parent categories.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral -- These are very much on the margins of an acceptable category size. If not kept, merge, not only as nom, but also to a Washington (State) occupational category per BHG to prevent loss of useful data.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge all as too narrow intersections that are not part of a meaningful scheme, as explained by . --PanchoS (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge All Per WP:NARROWCAT. The keep votes make a convincing case that WP:SMALLCAT is poorly written but not that these categories aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge all We have gone way too far in this specific occupation from specific city categorizing. It may work with a few huge cities, but not with Tacoma. I am unconvinced we need to split chefs by city at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Category:Television personalities

 * 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 merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television personalities to Category:Television people
 * Nominator's rationale: The difference between personality and people does not seem to be enough relevant to keep two different categories. I fail to see the difference in scope between the two. This discussion also concerns and its subcategories, which duplicate .  you expressed doubts on the relevance of this category in a previous CfD. Place Clichy (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - there's a big difference between personality and people - e.g. few (if any) of the articles in Category:Television pioneers are about TV personalities. @Place Clichy - please link to the previous discussion that you are referring to. DexDor(talk) 22:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Link. The topic of the discussion was different (split in male vs. female, closed as no split) but the value of the category did get discussed by some editors. Place Clichy (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per DexDor. The two concepts are quite different in scope. A might help. --PanchoS (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Would you be so kind to tell me the difference in a few words? Personality (i.e. in this context person) and people look pretty synonymous to me. If the difference is that a personality is more notable than people (which is true), that would not justify a Wikipedia category, because Wikipedia categories only gather people notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, even when they are called Foo people. Place Clichy (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment An example of issue coming from having two category trees is that and  are categorized as Television personalities but not as, which would seems just as legitimate. Place Clichy (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. Place Clichy (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge -- If someone can come up with a robust definition of which TV People are (and are not) personalities, we could probably re-create personalities, but the distinction is likely to be a POV-issue, which cannot provide a viable category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A "Television personality" is someone who has regularly appeared on television as themselves, in particular hosting or presenting shows." Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, TV people is clearly broader as it also contains directors, writers, critics, while personalities apparently only refers to people who have been on TV. I wouldn't oppose a rename though, if there is a better term than personality. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per opposers. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Category:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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.

First off, when a page is deleted at an XFD discussion, that decision can be overturned only at WP:DRV. Talk page discussions are not as widely notified, so they can't overrule the broader consensus at CFD. So the nominator Good Ol’factory was being generously forgiving in bringing the category here, rather than speedy deleting it per WP:G4. But here we are. The consensus of this discussion is that if kept, the category needs a massive purge. However, those who investigated found that only 3 pages actually belonged in this category. Per WP:SMALLCAT, 3-article categories rarely survive a CFD discussion ... so on balance, I find that those favouring deletion have arguments more firmly based in policy. That amounts to a consensus for deletion. Editors are of course quite entitled to disagree with a consensus decision, but should respect it unless and until it is overturned. If anyone wants to challenge this decision, please use the proper venue: WP:Deletion review. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: delete.


 * Propose deleting occupation of the malheur national wildlife refuge


 * Nominator's rationale: Category was recently discussed and deleted: see here. Re-creation of it was proposed and discussed here, on the article talk page. I'm just bringing it here to verify that there is consensus that re-creation is OK, since it was so recently deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Uh...talk page consensus is talk page consensus. What more proof do you need? Parsley Man (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, most of those who participated in the recent CFD have not commented, so it's kind of difficult to know what they think about re-creation. If you're confident that there is a consensus for re-creation, then there's nothing to fear; this discussion will just confirm what you believe. Having this discussion will better insulate the category from being nominated for speedy deletion via G4. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, let it be known that that discussion is over a month old without anymore input from anyone else and no category was created in that time, so I assumed it would be okay to do so. Parsley Man (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It was totally OK; I'm not faulting you. I'm just concerned that the difference between the numbers that participated in the original discussion vs. the numbers that participated in the re-assessment would still leave the door open to a G4. If you would prefer that I withdraw this nomination and you take your chances on a speedy nomination not happening, I'd be willing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, gotcha. You don't have to withdraw this. Parsley Man (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fair for whoever closes this discussion to consider the talk page discussion, since some users who were previously in favor of deleting the category were OK with it being re-created, and they may not otherwise comment here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable to consider. It should also be considered though that the claim was made that the article count had grown to 9 and I'm at a loss to find 9 articles that belong here. (If it was really that high, I'd change my vote too.) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or purge - this category should only contain articles that belong in all of the parent categories - currently there's even a category loop. Categories should group similar articles - linkage between related articles is done by normal hyperlinks. DexDor(talk) 04:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete There are exactly 3 articles that belong in this category (1, 2 & 3) but they all fit nicely into the 10 article parent category, Category:Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The rest of this category WP:OCASSOC and WP:PERFCAT so heavily purge if kept. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now but purge -- This is an incident of which I know nothing apart from what I read here, but there seems to be far more content than the subject deserves. Ideally the three articles should be merged (with a lot of purging), when they have been, the category can be deleted.  The one surviving article should perhaps be placed in a county category (not vice versa).  Alternatively merge into Category:Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, purging extraneous material.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Category:Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Models
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting sports illustrated swimsuit models


 * Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted in 2007. Rather than nominating it for speedy deletion of re-created material, I'm bringing it here to see if consensus has changed. In my opinion, it's still overcategorization of the performer by performance kind. The information is also contained in List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition models and a bunch of templates, which divide them by year. It seems to me that these are sufficient. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Categories such as Category:American female models and subcats are sufficient for categorization. IMO we should generally salt categories deleted at CFD so that they cannot be recreated without involvement of an admin. DexDor(talk) 04:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The deleted category was Category:Sports Illustrated swimsuit models, so salting wouldn't have helped here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Appearing on the cover of a magazine is a WP:OC as much as appearing on stage in a play. NOT ALLOWED. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an overcategorization of performers by performance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Category:Gluten-free restaurants
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. The one remaining article after a purge is Thrive Cafe. I will leave it to usual editorial discretion to decide whether it belongs in, now renamed to Category:Gluten-free diet. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose Deleting Category:Gluten-free restaurants
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING, WP:PERFCAT and WP:SMALLCAT
 * These aren't restaurants that are gluten free as an overall concept, they are overwhelmingly restaurants that have gluten free options available on a broader menu. It's like having Category:Restaurants that have Chicken Kiev on their dinner menu. Only one of the articles is entirely gluten-free but that would leave a 1 article category and I'm not sure it's defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The notified Epeefleche as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or alt merge to . I purged the articles on restaurants that are not entirely gluten-free. For the single one remaining, being gluten-free however is a clearly defining characteristic. It also isn't likely to be the only one out there, and chances are good that we'll see a relatively high coverage of these. --PanchoS (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge Remaining Article I'm fine with putting the one remaining article in the Category:Gluten-free cuisine you just created; thanks for setting that up! RevelationDirect (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge into the other cat, per above.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that I nominated to be renamed to "Gluten-free diet" per its main article. I initially chose "cuisine" rather than "food" to keep the focus on specific food for gluten sensitive people, as most unprocessed food is naturally gluten-free anyway, and we don't want to inflate the category with unspecific articles on tomatos, onions, potatoes, rice or meat dishes. Now I considered "Gluten-free diet" would be an even better choice to keep the category focussed on what's specific to a Gluten-free diet. If someone disagrees, we can move that one to a regular discussion. --PanchoS (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete categorizing restaurants by various subtypes that may or not be permanent is not a good idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete NOTDIRECTORY. These needing gluten-free food have a difficult time, but that does not mean that WP should have a category for them.  There is a place for such a category, but it is probably somewhere like trip-advisor.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, this one article is about a restaurant serving (1) organic, (2) vegan, (3) gluten-free, and (4) dairy-free food. We wouldn't want to have it in four categories, would we? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure we would, if it's an organic, vegan, gluten-free and dairy-free restaurant, unless there's some adequate category for free-of-all-of-this restaurants. IMO, the only valid reason to delete it is size, and that may change. --PanchoS (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't categorize by all possible menu characteristics per WP:NONDEF. I'm surely okay with one menu characteristic as a restaurant's defining characteristic (e.g. a restaurant serving Chinese food), but not with four. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


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