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 act of competing at a specific edition of the Universiade is not defining aspect for an athlete. This competition is not a top level of any sport, in that only students may take part. Participation in this competition is not sufficiently defining of a person that they warrant direct navigation to other people who competed at the games that year. Navigation within the sports result/medallist pages is sufficient. Appearances are almost always a small part of a professional athlete's career and being selected for the Universiade is neither a story of note, nor an overall career objective for any sportsperson.
I believe the tree under Category:Competitors at multi-sport events by country should be used for open-class global or continental Games only. To have two categories (year of appearance and country) for each and every competition that an athlete has taken part in is excessive. One could say the current arrangement without expanding it further is already excessive, for example see Michael Frater. SFB22:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fell the whole tree -- I cannot beleive that competitors at student games (which are - by definition - not open events) are notable for competing. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, there's not even an article currently about the Summer Universiade 2015. I've looked at a number of the articles currently in this category, none of them even mention participation in the Universiade. They are all notable for later achievements in adulthood (e.g. Summer Olympics, national football teams etc). This deletion nomination should also include Category:Universiade competitors by year. Sionk (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2015 (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: The combination of a person's race and religion is not a distinguishing feature enough to merit direct navigation between the people with that feature. The ways in which these people are both black and Mormon are profoundly different (example: Malian Yeah Samake who converted after discussing the religion with an American couple, and Helvécio Martins a Brazilian of African descent several generations back who joined a local church). SFB21:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the case of Mormonism due to historical factors, this combination is justified for categorization. This has been discussed before and the concensus was to keep it. Also, saying that Martins "joined a local church" is inaccurate, Martins joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in which the "church" people join is the world-wide body. Martins would later serve as a General Authority, one of the worldwide leaders in the Church. We have the article Black people and Mormonism already, that is much more than a list and uses a large number of reliable sources, although it does not incorporate much from Russell Stevenson's recent book For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830-2013, which was published by Greg Kofford Books and received the 2014 best book award from the Mormon History Association. This intersection of two topics can clearly have a sourced to reliable sources article that is more than a list, since it actually does, so there is no reason why we cannot have the category. Stevenson is not the first writer to move this topic out of the narrower discussion of Category:African-American Latter Day Saints. Marcus Martins has written a short partial sociological book that addresses the subject in a broader context, in part because Martins while a professor in the US is a native of Brazil (and the son of the other Martins mentioned above).John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
split/delete but... This has the almost inevitable issue of LDS categories where people who are incidentally Mormons (Gladys Knight could be the headliner for this group, as it were) are lumped in with people of some importance in Mormon history, where in this case their race is germane. But as far as blacks without aspirations to the higher levels of the priesthood is concerned, I do not see how their race is notable. What we really need is a category for my second group, that is, people whose notability derives from their race and their importance in Mormonism, and that's a category we do not have. In any case, if the category is retained, it needs to be renamed to Category:Black Latter Day Saints given that is the naming style of all the rest of the "Mormon people" cateory tree. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that the Mormons discriminated against black people much longer than other religions doesn't make the intersection any more notable. Moreover, this is an unmaintainable race/religion category. Religion is changeable (indeed the missionaries sent out by the very church we are talking about that count on that), and race (while "African-American" has been argued in past AFDs to be an ethnicity in addition to a race, "Black" is not unless one assumes that all the various ethnicity categories for various indigenous Africans ought to be merged to some hypothetical monolithic "Black" ethnicity) is more than not a social construct which depends on various subjective definitions - like how one looks, self-identifies, or whether one-drop of "Black" blood makes one black, like Jim Crow laws used to define it; foe example: if Barack Obama is "Black" despite his mother not, someone just decided subjectively that his "White" half is not defining. Very slippery slope... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentGladys Knight is not incidentally Mormon. One of Knight's main activities is that she currently heads Saints Unified Voices a choir that promotes the Latter-day Saint religion, and she also gives talks about the religion when the choir performs. She travels throughout the United States doing so. Nothing about her involvement with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "incidental".John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that the LDS Church has an official organization in the Genesis Group which has support and out-reach to people of Black African descent as its goal and mission probably alone justifies this category. While some would say it has an African-American related goal, it does not limit itself to people who by any ethnic criteria are African-American, it seeks to do outreach to any black people in the operating area of its various branches. That being said, it is not a congregation of the Church with specific membership and boundaries, but a support organization which has the leadership positions of a branch (3 members presidency, relief society presidency, mission leader etc) but meets only monthly and members are part of other wards/branches. It should also be kept in mind that one of Russell Stemvenson's underlying arguments in his book "For the Cause of Righteousness" is that the international unity of the LDS Church create international commonality of black Latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this past discussion [
This category was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2013. The result of the discussion was do not merge.
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.
Strong keep - Very useful category. Some speakers, such as Juan Enríquez, Dan Ariely, Maz Jobrani (not even categorized), Ray Kurzweil (Do you know that wikipedia uses his TED diagrams in wiki articles!), Benjamin Zander accessed by readers such myself, just because they are TED speakers. The category might not be a definitive characteristic for some speakers, but for lesser known people that sure is the case.--175.157.161.162 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, because TED users find the biographies in Google searches then they come to the speakers' wiki bio. That's how the readers relate the bio with with TED. Since the bios are work in progress, it is not wise to assume the importance of TED association is static. One can always edit and mention the TED speaking.--Chanaka L (talk)08:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list article is a appropriate but these are, for the most part, people who were asked to do TED talks because they were already famous for something else. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For speakers that are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article but not extremely well known (unlike the Gordon Brown and David Byrne examples above), I think it is defining. Having spoken at the TED conference is often considered an exclusive invitation (not just a normal speaking engagement) and is often mentioned in media articles about the these individuals. I don't feel having a list precludes having a category (when the list was nominated for deletion, some suggested it could be deleted because of this category). -- Zyxw (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep 1) The category and the list overlap, but there are some speakers that are only in one. 2) Different readers & editors have different ways of perceiving information & navigating Wikipedia - one way does not fit everyone. Note: "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems." from WP:CLNT which also supports this Strong Keep with other arguments. — Lentower (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re 1) if persons are missing in the list, please add them.
Re 2) This is not related to the particular nomination. As an argument it could be used in every other CfD discussion (in theory) and would therefore be equally meaningless in every other CfD discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While it might not be a defining characteristic for high profile politicians or scientists to be a TED speaker, it is for activists who are given a global stage to discuss the social problems they are combating. It can give their work or campaign a prominence that is can radically change their funding or program expansion. Rather than creating a new category of "Little known people who become famous due to their TED lecture", it is simpler to just keep this category. There is no requirement that an individual has to be in every single category that is valid for them so if it is a world leader or Nobel prize winner, remove them from the TED speakers category if it has led to overcategorization. LizRead!Talk!22:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "There is no requirement that an individual has to be in every single category that is valid for them": that is actually the way that Wikipedia categorization works; if the inclusion criteria of a category is "people who have characteristic X" then every article about a person who has characteristic X belongs in that category. Adding categories of the form "people who have characteristic X, but don't have characteristic Y" (e.g. "Category:TED speakers who have not (yet) won a Nobel prize") would open a huge can of worms. DexDor(talk)21:04, 27 July 2015 (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: How much of a country's energy is renewable is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the country (e.g. Albania). If kept this should be renamed to something more meaningful - e.g. "Places that produce ...". DexDor(talk)05:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this, a region using 100% renewable energy is important and defining on that region, and should be in the LEAD of each article in this category.GliderMaven (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsensical category name. It does not show anything about the scope of "100% renewable energy" (is it about the energy source itself? the power plant? a car?) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current content per WP:NONDEF. No objection to the category per se, but only if it would contain articles about 100% renewable energy, which it currently does not. No objection against listification of regions with 100% renewable energy. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the problem is the level of energy that comes from "renewable" sources fluctuates within any area over time due to a broad variety of factors. This is assuming that what is and what is not a "renewable" source of energy is fully agreed upon. I am not sure that is the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2015 (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.
Listify that some food is traditionally ate at Thanksgiving is not defining for the food itself, since it is also eaten othertimes. (such as Christmas Turkey, summer barbeque corn, Halloween pumpkins, etc); note "Thanksgiving" is also celebrated in Canada. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually besides Canada Thanksgiving is also celebrated in Grenada (where they celebrate the American intervention), Liberia and Norfolk Island. It is not clear from the article if the food traditions associated with the day in these other places are the same as in the US. On the other hand, in the southern-US and in African-American culture at least in places like Metro-Detroit, Macaroni and Cheese is one of the default foods of thanksgiving, yet in Utah and Idaho it is not. Yet even among southerners, especially in places like Kentucky, of any race, and among African-Americans in Detroit while macaroni and cheese is viewed as an essential part of any complete Thanksgiving meal, it is also eaten on many of the other 364 days of the year, so not a food exclusively eaten at thanksgiving time, and eating it does not conjure up a thanksgiving meal, unless combined with Turkey and some other foods. However the use of that food is broad enough that this one heavy use by some cultures on a certain holiday is not defining to the food itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or add these food items to Thanksgiving dinner. The possible foods served at Thanksgiving is enormous. Parts of my family serve sauerkraut but being a Thanksgiving food is not defining for cabbage. LizRead!Talk!22:52, 26 July 2015 (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.
