Nominator's rationale: No clear inclusion for what's "repetitive". Is EADGBE "repetitive" because it has two E's? Repetitive tuning doesn't have an article. This seems completely arbitrary and non-defining. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)21:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Repetition is discussed in the articles with reference to William Sethares's and other reliable sources. For example, unison tuning CCCCCC, major-thirds tuning E-G♯-c-e-g♯-c', augmented fourths tuning BFBFBF, cittern tuning CGCGCG, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz21:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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: This is an ambiguous open-ended category. The entries in this category should instead be in a parent category (e.g. Christian sex abuse cases). That category should include the Catholic sub-category. Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the entirety of the nominator's rationale. Create the higher level category if not already present and migrate the contents of this category into it and relevant (yet to be created?) sub categories. The creator is doing an excellent job with sorting out this hierarchy 0f categories. One cannot get everything right. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not empty categories that are under discussion, as a general rule (and one that is explicitly stated in the CfD procedures). It is helpful to see how editors are using a category when it is under discussion.- choster (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a procedural note, the category was only created today, as part of an exercise to regularise the categories (in my opinion). As such no editors are actually using it save for the editor who created it, who agrees with the nomination. This is a good case for WP:IAR. I imagine the category may be speedied if the creating editor suggests it? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2012 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. WP:SMALLCAT ; satellite is inactive, and objects discovered by this satellite appear in its subcategory. No upmerge needed, since the satellite is already categorized in them, and the subcategory should not be categorized into them. Aside from the subcategory, there is only the satellite article in this category. 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name is ambiguous and could either refer to books about Native Americans or books written by Native Americans. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge (or rename). This category is an admirable attempt to provide readers for a way to determine if bio articles are from Mohawks in what is now Ontario, Quebec or New York State. Still, the Mohawk people reject (to varying degrees) being defined by Canadian or U.S. citizenship. If kept, I'd propose a rename to Mohawk people in Canada (or Ontario or Quebec) as the current name, again, seems to emphasize nationality (which is an imposition) as opposed to location. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge as per nom, and also many notable Mohawk people have lived in both the United States and Canada. This is an example of overcategorization. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
I just noticed that there really is no reason for this category. The proposed renames below would be fine with some sorting of the categories and by including these in Category:20th-century Roman Catholic church buildings, it would encourage the movement of the articles into subcategories. Even if the change below this fails, this category still is not needed and in fact its existence could discourage migration into the by year categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Roman Catholic churches completed in the 1930s
Nominator's rationale:Rename. By decade categories add an unnecessary level of navigation. Virtually all building categories are organized on a by year or by century basis and they do not pose a navigation issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I submit that there should be one category for the people named 'Monorchid people' and a category for the nonintersecting qualifying condition 'Monorchism'. Category:Amputations and Category:Amputees, in similarity, already exist but don't seem to precisely apply. Same with Category:Castration and Category:Castrated people. What are alternative suggestions for addressing this gap in coverage/treatment of the subject matter as far as categorisation for the individuals affected and the syndrome they have in common?Oxycut (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—The comparison with "castration" is inapt. There are several ways for an individual to have only one testicle, whereas there is only one way for an individual to be castrated. The fact that various men have been born with a single testicle, had one surgically excised for a variety of reasons (torsion, agenesis, herniae, etc.), or suffered scrotal trauma is not defining for those men. The strong BLP issues and RS issues associated with these three categories add additional problems.Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the condition is not defining (and in any case there is a list within Monorchism) and so a 'people' subcat is not admissible; accordingly there are insufficient articles for a topic category. Oculi (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is Category:Diabetes supposed to be about a 'defining' condition too? No. It's a category that aids to link together a number of articles which have relationship to a medical syndrome. My research discloses that there's no lower limit to the number of members in a category. There can be one like in Category:Gambian amputeesOxycut (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not clear the category serves any purpose other than trivia. WP:BLPCAT applies, I think, in that just because someone has this condition doesn't mean it is relevant to their notability. No, it's not a religious belief or sexual orientation, but...it also isn't necessarily related to notability either. Frank | talk 13:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diabetes doesn't have to be 'relevant to a person's notability' for there to be a category which groups together numerous article which aren't disputed to have some relationship to its subject matter.Oxycut (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep on the simple basis that, while it is not a defining characteristic, it is a definite characteristic. I'm tempted to go down the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS route to argue in favour of keeping it, but that would be counter-productive. I am wondering if it is because the body part is a testicle that this discussion is being held at all. It's not as if we have categories Category:Those missing only the left testicle and Category:Those missing only the right testicle, which would be a restrictive definition too far(!). The fact that men exist and function perfectly acceptably with one testicle only is important to those suffering from or afraid to report their own personal testicular cancer. It is heartening to see a group of notable people who have, for one reason or another, lost one of the pair, and who are citably functioning without it. I think the category has a psychological, medical and encyclopaedic benefit for being present. I believe the benefits of retaining this category far outweigh any possible technical and procedural reasons for removing it. There are times to make a wise decision instead of a procedural one. This is one such time. However it and the other categories reflecting this single topic shoudl be rationalised such that only one exists. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly reject that type of argument. Call me cold-hearted but we're an encyclopedia, not a support group. We don't have categories for sufferers of alopecia or people who have only one functioning kidney despite the fact that both conditions can be quite problematic. The key here is the difference between problematic and defining. Besides, if people with monochrism want to see a list of examples, it's already in the article. Pichpich (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing: it's true that we wouldn't necessarily have this discussion if it was a different body part. Indeed, everyone agrees that Category:Amputees makes sense. But this is because missing a leg is typically defining. Nobody here is skittish about discussing testicles and you can see above and in the related CfDs that people are perfectly comfortable defending Category:Castrated people. Pichpich (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, navigation between pages is already easy through the links in the article. Keeping the category would make it liable to be used inappropriately for biographies; the list of people in the article is better for this, as it has explanations and sources. – FayenaticLondon20:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
