User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1046-20130206052632/@comment-188432-20130206063343

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1046-20130206052632/@comment-188432-20130206063343 Well, see, the other question here is whether there are enough people to justify having a non-human category. As a general rule, we have said for a while that you need to have at least 3 pages to start a category. And there aren't 3 definitively non-human flight attendants.

In fact a part of the reason for dropping "human" was because of the examples you cited where species was indeterminate. This is another reson why all the human-prepnded cats need re-examining: there are tons and tons of people who are only assumed to be human lurking therein.

Incidentally we obviously do have a few categories which don't meet the 3-article ideal, but that's because either they're very likely to have at least 3 articles — but those articles haven't been written — or they provide vital "glue" in the category tree.

Non-human flight attendants — which would be necessary to justify the existence of human flight attendants — wouldn't qualify for either exception.