Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 30



Category:Crimean Tatar people

 * 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, and I'll volunteer to finish the split. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 02:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Crimean Tatar people to Category:Crimean Tatars and Category:Crimean Tatar people, restructuring as follows:
 * Rename Category:Crimean Tatar people to Category:Crimean Tatars to hold most of the sub-categories and a few articles relating to the ethnic group as a whole.
 * Keep the biographies, and  within  Category:Crimean Tatar people which should become a sub-cat of the above.
 * Propose renaming Category:Politics of the Crimean Tatar people to  Category:Politics of the Crimean Tatars
 * Nominator's rationale: The goal is to separate the biographies into a new sub-category. I can identify precedents if required. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support renames -- Where there is an acceptable demonym, it should be used. "People" is redundant.  However, I am not sure that the split is necessary, since most of the related topics are already in subcategories.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose people is not redundant, otherwise why would we have categories like Category:American people?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said "people" was redundant; there will still be a category with that name, to contain only biographies. For an American example, this would be like (say) and . – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Based on Peterkingiron's comment I removed a few individuals from this head category because they were already in subcategories. There are still some left that don't fit in any subcategory so we can still go ahead with the split. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 6 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:Australian Olympians in World War I

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Convert Category:Australian Olympians in World War I to article List of Australian Olympians in World War I
 * Nominator's rationale: Excessive intersection between two unrelated concepts - better discussed as a list article. SFB 17:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Two unrelated concepts, as the nom states. I don't see what value a list would have either TBH.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- A trivial intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A list would be rather pointless as well, although I wouldn't have a very strong objection. Neutralitytalk 05:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete the category. A list article would need to be judged on what sources it utilizes in its creation, so I will not pass judgement on the potential of a list article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 1 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:Adaptations of works by John Phillip

 * 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. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting adaptations of works by john phillip


 * Nominator's rationale: There is no parent category for John Phillip because little seems to be know about him. This category seems to be limited to the one work he is known for. Rathfelder (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SMALLCAT (part of the established scheme Category:Adaptations of works by writer) but rename to Category:Adaptations of works by John Phillip (poet) per John Phillip (poet). A Charm of Lullabies seems (in part) to be an adaptation of one of his works. (It is always agreeable to spot a Stefanomionism, such as Category:Works based on works.) There is no requirement for an eponymous category for the author. Oculi (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete poetic work inspirin this work is not one of the defining characteristics we seek to have for all musical works, so there is no reason to have one article categories to fill this scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 28 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:Computer storage terminology

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting computer storage terminology


 * Nominator's rationale: Newly created "terminology" category, that contains an arbitrary selection of pages from under the Category:Computer storage tree. —Ruud 11:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nominator is right. Judging by its name, this category must contain only pages that deal with science of terminology (study of terms and their use). Instead, it contains "Copy-on-write", "Cylinder-head-sector", etc. which are all computer storage terms. (Every page in Category:Computer storage and its subcategories qualifies for this description.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename
 * Not an "an arbitrary selection of pages" but pages that have WP:V sources and widely used in industry as professional jargon / terminology.
 * Namely, all 30 pages can be found (1 2) in SNIA Dictionary.
 * Before creation of the contested category, Category:Computer storage had many items that weren't relevant to Category:Computer storage at all, so I decided to WP:IGNOREALLRULES and move all content that I was able to find in SNIA Dictionary. But it seems like nominator neglects my efforts.
 * What is left in Category:Computer storage is mostly unfinished and unsourced pages or good pages (Memory access pattern) not moved yet to Category:Computer storage terminology
 * As author of this category, I can clarify it's definition: it is definitely not limited to "study of terminology" but about "topics in this field".
 * I do not object category rename, if better naming possible at all. Ushkin N (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument here seems to be that because a term is in a dictionary, the article about the subject denoted by that term belongs in a "terminology" category. But every English word is in a dictionary, so the obvious extension of this principle is that every Wikipedia article should be in a "terminology" category. We categorize articles based on what the articles are *about*, not on whether the title *is* terminology - all words are terminology. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Each article is about a "term" and the article uses words with punctuation to describe the term. That sounds a lot like every other Wikipedia article that, you know, conveys meaning through language. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, so what action is suggested for categories with 200 articles, where 1/2 of them are not sourced?
 * I think you slightly overreact an ordinary terminology maintenance category:
 * Category:Physics and Category:Concepts in physics.
 * Category:Programming languages and Category:Programming language topics.
 * You are not able show how my edits are just "random selection of articles" nonsense you seem to support. Ushkin N (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently, the Category:Computer storage parent category has only 16 "loose" articles and 23 other subcategories. Perhaps this category tree changes since you referred to 200 articles? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, obviously. The articles are about the things themselves (i.e. computer storage things), not about the names of the things. (Similarly Cumberland sausage is in Category:English sausages, not Category:English sausage terminology, because it is about the sausage itself and not about the name "Cumberland sausage".) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Ushkin N has been indefinitely blocked for creating this mess (after several previous blocks for similar disruption), and I have now reverted all of his controversial re-categorizations as not a single one of the articles so categorized was actually *about* the terminology. (The logic appears to be that if the name of something is in a dictionary, then the article about it belongs in a "terminology" category - but every word in the English language is in a dictionary!) This category is now, therefore, empty. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:37, 31 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:Geothermal power by country

 * 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: renamed to sync with the main article Geothermal energy. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to


 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to


 * Nominator's rationale: per parent and more general main articles such as Geothermal energy in the United States and to accommodate direct usage. There's currently not enough content for further subdivisions per country, but on the per-continent level further subdivision may be possible. --PanchoS (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that while some main articles already followed the "Geothermal energy" scheme, all others have been nominated to be accordingly renamed as well. --PanchoS (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I fully agree that we should unify the structure. Taking account the fact that the parent category is Category:Geothermal energy and the main article of that category was moved from Geothermal power to Geothermal energy back in 2010, the nomination sounds logical. At the same time, power and energy are not synonyms and correspondingly geothermal energy and geothermal power are not synonyms. We have had similar discussions about other types of energy/power, most significantly probably about nuclear energy categorization. It is also important to notice that right now Geothermal power redirects to Geothermal electricity, not to Geothermal energy. Actually, the reason why Geothermal power was moved to Geothermal energy was that there was no consensus concerning merging Geothermal electricity and Geothermal power that time and it was decided that the article about geothermal power that time was actually about geothermal energy. It clearly shows that there is distinction between geothermal energy and geothermal power but this distinction is often ignored by editors. From practical point of view, I understand that after this renaming we should removed these categories from the Electric power category tree? Beagel (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately yes, we would have to fully move them from the tree to the  tree, though  would remain somewhere in the  tree. Then again this is because we currently don't have enough content, and because geothermal heat generation is not just a negligible by-product, but an important usage going back at least to Ancient Roman times, that according to this 2015 paper might still be the predominant form of using geothermal energy worldwide, including a split usage in the U.S. Therefore, the rename IMO seems unavoidable. --PanchoS (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We should add "Geothermal energy in ..." categories, not delete/change the olds one, which are useful if one is searching only power plants. --Robertiki (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's simply not enough content to have both sets of categories, but we may keep redirects, so the categories show up in site searches and on HotCat. --PanchoS (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How much content do you need ? I see about a 50/50 split, with enough for both. --Robertiki (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL, this is ridiculous. Are you seriously talking about a 50/50 split of the categories Geothermal power in Canada, Geothermal power in Germany, Geothermal power in the United Kingdom, or do you hope for more turnout in Geothermal power in Saba, Geothermal power in Saint Kitts and Nevis? Better get serious before other participants propose merging all one level up per WP:NARROWCAT. --PanchoS (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Should I seriously need to explain how it should be done in a reasonable way ? If there is only one type, ok to delete, but don't take away categories which have enough entries to warrant a keep. I would stress once more: we *should* talk on a case per case basis. --Robertiki (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, to align with parent category and article name. (Oppose alternative suggestion to split, per lack of sufficient content.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 6 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:MBA graduates

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting mba graduates


 * Propose deleting Category:American MBA graduates
 * Propose deleting Category:Antiguan MBA graduates
 * Propose deleting Category:Indian MBA graduates
 * Propose deleting Category:Malaysian MBA graduates
 * Nominator's rationale: In the past we have deleted categories that group people by academic degree. Just four of the many examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. This is another of the same type. No one is defined by being an MBA graduate. No one has a Wikipedia article because they are an MBA graduate. We therefore should not be categorizing by it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per countless precedents. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Holding a MBA is too common to merit a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as duplicative with subcats of Category:Alumni by business school and Category:Alumni by business school in the United States. Neutralitytalk 05:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Too much overlap with other categories to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 1 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:Petroleum in California

 * 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.

Now while according to Petroleum, "in its strictest sense, petroleum includes only crude oil, but in common usage it includes all liquid, gaseous, and solid hydrocarbons," the narrower definition IMO seems to be the more common sense. Therefore inclusion of natural gas IMHO is questionable, in any case not sufficiently obvious. Fossil fuels in Puerto Rico, Fossil fuels in the United States Virgin Islands already exist and are further split into oil and natural gas, so if someone wants to split these three categories, too, instead of just renaming them, go ahead. --PanchoS (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: not renamed. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Petroleum in California to Category:Fossil fuels in California
 * Category:Petroleum in Oklahoma‎ to Category:Fossil fuels in Oklahoma
 * Category:Petroleum in Texas to Category:Fossil fuels in Texas
 * Nominator's rationale: Category contains articles related to both oil and natural gas, also the main article is California oil and gas industry.


 * Comment Fossil fuels includes coal so this rename is a non-starter. Category:Oil and gas in California etc seems a better option. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, fossil fuels include coal, a more solid fossil material. In fact, there's a smooth transition, though, with Bituminous coal being quite closely affiliated to Bituminous oil sands or heavy crude oil. So while there are good reasons to subcategorize, given there are sufficient articles, We'd first break down the parent category into per-state categories, before further subdividing. --PanchoS (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- Since they occur together "oil and gas" - Category:Oil and gas in California would be appropriate, but merging that into something covering coal, oil sands and such like would not. A headnote would need to explain that this refers to natural gas, not coal gas, etc.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Energy categories structure for the U.S. states should follow the categories tree of countries. For countries we have fossil fuels category which has petroleum, natural gas, coal and in some cases also oil sands or oil shale as subcategories. Oppose also renaming petroleum to oil and gas. Beagel (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right in that the U.S. state categories should follow existing country schemes – that's precisely what my proposal does. The appropriate country scheme is . Now of course you can nevertheless say WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but then it's not about category structure considerations. --PanchoS (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am little bit confused now. In addition to we have also  as one of its subcategories. Beagel (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course the per-country categories may be further subdivided, as they generally hold more content than per-U.S.-state categories. But as long as we don't have the fairly high-level properly subdivided per U.S. state, it's no good idea to have splits at lower levels. --PanchoS (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the category structure clearly matches accepted real world definitions: fossil fuels includes coal and petroleum and then petroleum includes oil and gas. Hmains (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, as an overarching structure per state it seems sufficient to have Category:Energy in the United States by state. Some states have petroleum, some states have coal, many states don't have enough of either of them to merit a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 7 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:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture!

 * 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. SST  flyer  05:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture!
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Oregon


 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in California
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Hawaii
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Illinois
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Indiana
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Kentucky
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Massachusetts
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Michigan
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Ohio
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Pennsylvania
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Texas
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Vermont
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Washington (state)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Washington, D.C.
 * Propose Deleting Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Wisconsin


 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT, WP:TRIVIALCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:V
 * Save Outdoor Sculpture! was a program to encourage local appreciation and preservation of public sculptures in the United States that consists of volunteers filling out a form describing the condition of the sculpture, usually with a photo. It's was so common, there used to be a Girls Scout patch for participating (source) and, as of 2009, over 30,000 American sculptures had been cataloged. This hardly seems defining and I can't find any online site that still lists which sculptures were included so it's no longer verifiable. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The notified Missvain as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Public Art. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- sounds trivial. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This amounts to something sort of like an award category, and so fails the defining test that we use for such categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture! but delete all the state categories. Seems not enough need for 50 potential examples yet.   Montanabw (talk)  02:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, not defining and not verifiable. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 7 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:Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame

 * 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. Other than BrownHairedGirl, none of the editors voting keep have addressed the WP:OCAWARD concern raised by delete voters. (non-admin closure)  SST  flyer  05:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose Deleting Category:Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * Kate Barnard is remarkable because she was elected state-wide by an all-male electorate when women didn't have the vote yet. But that remarkable-ness isn't enhanced by being inducted into |an online Hall of Fame 50 years after her death. Even for women who lived to be inducted into the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame, the nature of a Hall of Fame is that it recognizes people who have already achieved fame. If we decide to delete this category, the winners are already listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified SusunW as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Oklahoma. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional Note: Ipigott also added the discussion to WikiProject Women in Red and Meetup 17 - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Background For a similar category that was deleted for Singapore, see here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: Recipients of all kinds of awards and recognitions have categories. Why is it that women's halls of fames are different?  SusunW (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply Take a look at WikiProject Awards and prizes to rest assured I'm not singling out women's awards. To answer your broader question though, while many awards (think Nobel Prize or Academy Award) make people more notable, by definition Halls of Fame group people who are already famous so they're rarely defining. (That includes the wrestling ones below.) RevelationDirect (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete it or don't. Doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things. Your rationale is solid enough to support your point and I'd rather focus my time on building an encyclopedia, than being mired in deletion discussions. SusunW (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete . Not WP:DEFINING for the women involved. There is already a list at Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Changing my !vote). Per my discussion below with, I have been persuaded that this is a rare exception to the general non-definingness of HOFs.  This HoF has not just noted the already-famous; it has been a mechanism for making people notable, and as such it is defining. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Despite the apparent logic of the points raised above, I strongly support the inclusion of this category along with all the similar categories listed under Category:Women's halls of fame. It provides an excellent guide to those wishing to identify some of the most notable women in the various American states, providing an overview far easier to follow than notability based on individual awards. Furthermore, now that Wikipedia's English-language articles are increasingly being translated into other languages, it provides a good starting point for editors wishing to identify candidates for biographies. Maybe it would help if this was defined as a "non-diffusing category" like many others related to women? If it is finally decided these categories should be deleted, then I would strongly support the creation of lists of women in the halls of fame of the various states. But it would be far easier just to keep the category.--Ipigott (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we disagree at all on improving representation in Wikipedia which is why I created Category:National Organization for Women and Category:American Woman's League. In this case though, I see the deficiency as all the red links in Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame where these women should have their own articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You've hit the nail on the head here, RD. By addressing women in the halls of fame of the various US states, we are able to write more and more articles on important red-linked women. The category helps to identify them and encourage editors to write articles about them.--Ipigott (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unwritten articles show up in the list article as red links but not at all in the category, so we'll need to agree to disagree on that last point. Thanks for a good conversation. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it did indirectly by the other categories the list contained but now I've been more specific.--Ipigott (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep because the academics have told us that categories are important for their work. And per SusunW and Ipigott. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The academics can look at a list. List articles are useful for identifying articles missing from WP (through redlinks), but you cannot have a redlink in a category.  I have got told off for nominating certain halls of fame.  I thought we had a consensus that if the hall is a physical museum, an article can survive, but not virtual ones.  In any event, the category will fail WP:OC.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the vast majority of halls of fame just reflect someone's pre-existing fame (that's their whole point). In almost all cases internet only museums would be too transitory to be defining but let's just imagine that a physical museum had a bronze bust, photography collection and memorabilia from Kate Barnard's administration. Well, all of those things would be there because Commissioner Barnard was famous before-hand; her death predated this award by over 50 years. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep In that case the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame should remain. It has a physical location at the Oklahoma State University Edmon Low Library where memorabilia, oral history, photographs, etc. are kept. Not a museum per se, but a physical archival collection, which can be consulted. SusunW (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification I like the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame list article and would strongly oppose an AfD to delete it because it's WP:NOTABLE. This nomination is strictly about the category not being WP:DEFINING for the inductees. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @ makes an excellent case for retaining the article and its list, and if those was were nominated for deletion I#d be shouting "keep".  But this discussion is about the category, which has different criteria. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate being lured back into this, as I really believe creating is way more important. But, I believe you are wrong about the category. There are women in each hall of fame, who are notable and fit GNG criteria by having multiple RS written about them in significant numbers, but who may not have had more than local prominence before they were inducted into a HoF. Say they were the first mayor of Mayberry. When they were inducted into the HoF they gained state recognition and eventually national recognition when someone wrote a book about the first women mayors in America. The induction into the hall does indeed add cachet to a woman's achievements. SusunW (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that rely, and sorry for my slow response. There is something in there which might persuade me to consider changing my mind about this category: your assertion that some of these women only came to prominence because of their inclusion in this HoF.  If I understand you correctly, the point you are making is that some of these women would not have passed WP:GNG until their inclusion in the HoF prompted others to write about them.  Can you give some estimate of the number of such women, and what proportion they represent of the total membership of the HoF? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) @
 * Let me be clear, so that there is no accusation of misrepresentation here. I grew up in Eastern Oklahoma. I was a women and native history major at the University of Oklahoma and spent 20+ years researching in the archives of the Oklahoma Historical Society, which include census rolls for all of the 77 Native American tribes which were once located there, Interior department reports, Agency reports, Freedmen's records, as well private collections and a newspaper archive. I am well versed in Oklahoma history, it's unique historic division of Oklahoma Territory vs. Indian Territory, which still exists to a fair extent in the minds of the citizens. I would venture that well-over 1/2 of the women in this state's hall of fame (as well as other state hall of fames) would have been lost to history without a nomination to the HoF. They meet GNG because significant coverage, over time, in RS exists, but much of that information is local in nature. It extends to statewide recognition, in many cases only after their induction into the HoF. There are exceptions of course, Ada Lois Sipuel, Anita Hill, Wilma Mankiller, Angie Debo, Dana Tiger, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Terry Neese were all nationally/internationally known figures, but as you see that list is the exception, rather than the rule. Most of these women are not "famous" as alleged by others. They were women the state has deemed were pivotal or representative of the state's development in their specialties. SusunW (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, . You have indeed persuaded me to change my !vote. Most HOFs simply list the already-famous, but this one has served more as a process of historical discovery, which does define its members. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Many original historical works have been read with a new eye--usually by female historians--which has brought many historical women out of the shadows. (This trend seems like it is always identified with A Midwife's Tale, but this had been going on in earnest throughout the '80s.) This HOF, started in 1982, certainly fits right into that. Perhaps the HOF lead to increased notability but perhaps that confuses the causality and herstory/women's history lead to both this HOF and the members increased notability. Of course, CFDs in Wikipedia require no such level of proof from any side and we have to use our best judgment and I could be mistaken. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete listify if sources, but none of these folks is defined by their selection to this hall of fame; they were - almost definitionally - famous for something else before selection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and frankly, the others probably should have been kept too. There is no overcategorization here, the category can ultimately wind up holding dozens of articles and it is a way that a reader may choose to navigate   Categories are far superior to lists when it comes to navigation, which is why we have categories.   Montanabw (talk)  02:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The category is specific and ties in well with the article/article list. I agree with everything Montanabw wrote above. Navigation is key, especially with specific categories like these, and the other categories should have been kept as well. Scanlan (talk) 02:19, 7 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:NWA Wrestling Legends Hall of Heroes

 * 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 both (non-admin closure)  SST  flyer  02:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose Deleting Category:NWA Wrestling Legends Hall of Heroes
 * Propose Deleting Category:NWA Hall of Fame
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * Both of these halls of fame recognize wrestlers and other people from the National Wrestling Alliance. Neither one of these seems dominant: they were established in 2007 and 2005. Most of the articles tend to mention these honors in passing, if at all and are only rarely mentioned in the introduction. Rather, these wrestlers were already famous and these awards just reflect that pre-existing fame. If we decide to delete these categories, the winners are already listed here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified Tigerhugger as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Professional wrestling. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Background For another wrestling HoF we recently deleted, see here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nondefining. These are not particularly notable; they were established long after the NWA's relevance waned to near nothing. It's not like the WWE Hall of Fame, which is actually widely recognized as actually enshrining significant figures for their whole career, even if they weren't part of the WWWF/WWF/WWE during their careers (like Verne Gange). Not a career defining accolade. oknazevad (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete unless a museum actually exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * At one point, the 2nd one had some photographs up in the lobby of the NWA headquarters in Texas but I'm not sure if that was temporary display or part of the permanent decor. (This doesn't make any difference from my perspective, but I want to make sure I'm not misleading you!) RevelationDirect (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My objective was to ask what the status of this hall of fame was. This is not always apparent from the list article.  I so not like hall of fame categories (and would delete them all), but there seems to be a consensus that some, where there is a physical museum, might be kept.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Hall of Heroes, Keep Hall of Fame. The NWA may be a withered husk of its former self, but its former self was a huge deal, largely because of the people in this category. Greg Price was never a big deal, so which wrestlers impressed him isn't either (probably also why that Hall's Wikipedia page hasn't been updated in seven years). WWE's version (though lacking a building) will outshine both because WWE is Scrooge McDuck rich, but historical significance isn't measured in current shininess (or bricks and mortar). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Hall of Heroes, Keep Hall of Fame, per Hulk's rationale. NWA was a major governing body in professional wrestling for many years and being inducted into their Hall of Fame is a defining characteristic.  The Hall of Heroes is not nearly as prestigious, certainly less so than the Hardcore Hall of Fame which I still believe should have been kept.LM2000 (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete both as not defining. I have explicitly checked a sample of articles in the Hall of Fame category, this characteristic was only mentioned in passing in all articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 8 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.