Strong keep - actually Category:Upper Neretva is intended to cover significantly broader range of topics, as it covers significantly larger space, physically and administratively (it stretches across to main Bosnian administrative entities - Republika Srpska and Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina); second point is that category (both of them, actually) has more potential than it looks at this point, as it covers settlement Glavatičevo and its adjacent geographical area which holds significant potential as tourist destination and it's a place of outstanding cultural and historical significance, which is best represented with a location of one of only three Bosnian heritage sites included into UNESCO list of protected sites - which all point to a possibility of much more articles on various individual subjects in the future. I also suspect that some articles are still not categorized under Glavatičevo and should have been, and that surprise me - both cats are in need of some care, and I will invest few minutes to sort them out and make them work better. Thanks, take care.--౪ Santa ౪99°21:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are many many types of disabilities which are unrelated except in that they may or may not be disabling. If you're disabled you're disabled, for whatever reason. Kinda like nothing in the Category:Shades of color has anything in common but having color(s). Hyacinth (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the previous discussion stated: "The grouping reflects no particular ability, expertise or interest that would support collaborative editing and for which someone might need to browse the category." -- Just N. (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You don't think of the input of Wikipedians with disabilities as useful and that diversity doesn't assist Wikipedia? Those seem very much anti-collaboration stances. Hyacinth (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)/Wikipedia[reply]
Keep/Merge I have to agree with Hyacinth, there are may types of disabilities which there is now a definition of Disabled and what types of disabilities there are on the page. There are Wikipedians who are disabled who create pages etc on this site too which some of us on Wikipedia forget. In my opinion, for example i think that epilepsy would be classed under both since some people who have it have it worse than others and cannot work or do basic tasks as they have a lot of seizures due to it and some can work which hardly effects their day to day activities. Perhaps, we should then merge the Disabled Wikipedians category into the Category:Wikipedians by medical condition or visa versa at least that way we can keep them both plus if there are are no relevant Wikipedia category pages on the medical condition page at least it would show it on the Disabled one or just add category: Wikipedians by medical condition to the disabled Wikipedian categories. D Eaketts (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep if users want to categorise themselves this way, why not? this is also a parent category for subcategories. Deleting this is expressing discrimination against disabled wikipedians. It appears that there is something going against minorities here that do not agree with the majority, so that any politically incorrect POV has to be censored here. Diversity is important here, and we should allow people to identify as to which part of diverse they are. The previous argument for deletion was incredibly flimsy, and this nom is even weaker, not giving any intrinsic reason whatsoever to deleteGraeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Disability can shape a person’s identity just as much as gender and sexual orientation, which each have their own categories. And given Wikipedia’s notorious lack of diversity, we shouldn’t be making future collaboration more difficult for marginalized groups. I’m also against merging it to Category:Wikipedians by medical condition. A disability will hinder one’s ability to live a normal life, whereas a medical condition may be nondisabling or inconsequential in the scheme of one’s life. In addition, there is a notable portion of the disabled community who believe in the social model of disability, which frames disability as the social barriers experienced by people with impairments. From that perspective, disability is a separate concept from medical conditions. Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rijeka and Fiume are the same place. The city has different names in different languages and its official name has changed , depending on which country it was in. Although I can see why someone might want to do this, it doesnt work. Plenty of the people in Category:People from Rijeka were there when it was called Fiume, and some are in both categories. As far as I know we havent done this for anywhere else, though there are plenty of cities whose names have changed. Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in this period there wasn't a country or region that resembled France in any way. Perhaps the 6th-century categories require manual merging as the Frankish kingdom was still expanding back then. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my reasoning at the similar "Belgium" CfD. Basically, this "anachronism" is what more readers are interested in than "Francia" or other historically correct groupings. Fram (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This category groups together sports clubs that are named after a person. Local athletes, Christopher Columbus, whoever. It's definitely more common for sports clubs to be named after, say, a city or animal but these articles have nothing in common other than the same type of name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]