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: A valley is a region between hills, so 'Sarasvati valley' does not even begin to make sense. A disastrous creation that should not have been kept so long. Jayakumar RG (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is about kingdoms from a work of myth. If they all lay in one river valley, this might be a legitiamte category, but I do not know enougfh of the subject to comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Saraswati valley at all since the river flows through the desert. I can find no sources where these kingdoms are mentioned as being near a Saraswati valley. This category is WP:OR. Jayakumar RG (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a rename be a better solution than a delete? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the naming issue, the main reasons I tagged it for deletion are WP:OCLOCATION and WP:SMALLCAT. This category is never going to expand beyond its current 4 items. Jayakumar RG (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WP:OCLOCATION applies to literature or mythology. Perhaps WP:SMALLCAT could apply but then the category should be upmerged instead of deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to rename the category, it would be something like 'Kingdoms mentioned in the Mahabharata along Saraswati river'. This is not at all an important category, and upmerging it would still leave the category visible in the articles. This is rather misleading. Jayakumar RG (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is not correct. If there would be consensus on upmerging, the upmerging process will take place automatically and the articles will be recategorised automatically. Meanwhile however, I guess it's difficult to reach consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TRIVIALCAT applies too, since the categorization is peripheral to the topic's notability. Jayakumar RG (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very convincing to come up with new rationales all the time. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and shut down - No policy backed rationale provided for the deletion. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep applies only when no argument was provided by the nominator at all. Here, an argument is provided and you should show why it is wrong. Speedy keep does not apply here. Jayakumar RG (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per FL. There is not enough evidence to show these are a distinct group that need seperate categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2014 (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.
Category:Oklahoma articles without listas parameter[edit]
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:no consensus. – FayenaticLondon 14:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is really unnecessary tracking. As far as I'm aware, the only other project that has a category like this is Biography, which makes sense as biographical articles will likely have to be sorted by family name. On the other hand, Category:2006 in Oklahoma does not need to be sorted other than by its base pagename. Articles like Troy Aikman (via Talk:Troy Aikman) are also included, even though they do have a listas parameter for {{WPBIO}}. This makes even less sense, as these are alphabetized properly in all tracking categories (cf. Category:Top-importance National Football League articles or Category:Low-importance Oklahoma articles.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If people in that project use it to reduce the number of "without listas" problems in their topic area, then I don't see any problem with this. Talk page categories are not usually prime real estate that needs to be kept to a reasonable minimum. SFB 17:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listas is infrequently used. Not using it is normal and you would have fewer entries if the category was Category:Oklahoma articles using listas parameter. While not in that WP, I see no advantage to the category. I will admit that for some of the projects I work on I use it when needed. But out of say 3,000 articles, if you exclude people articles, the need for it probably runs well under 100 articles and my guess is most of those are for yearly events with yearly articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2014 (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.
Category:Military personnel referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht[edit]
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.
Keep Roughly 1,500 soldiers and officers were personally mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht. In comparison 7,364 people received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross or one of its higher grades, Germany's highest award for military bravery and leadership. To be mentioned in the Wehrmachtberich is a very rare distinction and honour. See also MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am supportive of a merge into one category MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Murawski, Erich (1962). Der deutsche Wehrmachtbericht 1939 – 1945, vom 1.7.1944 bis zum 9.5.1945 [The German Wehrmacht Report 1939 – 1945, from 1 July 1944 to 9 May 1945] (in German). Boppoard am Rhein, Germany: Harald Boldt Verlag.
Die Wehrmachtberichte 1939–1945 Band 1, 1. September 1939 bis 31. Dezember 1941 [The Wehrmacht Reports 1939–1945 Volume 1, 1 September 1939 to 31 December 1941] (in German). München, Germany: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH & Co. KG. 1985. ISBN978-3-423-05944-2.
Die Wehrmachtberichte 1939–1945 Band 2, 1. Januar 1942 bis 31. Dezember 1943 [The Wehrmacht Reports 1939–1945 Volume 2, 1 January 1942 to 31 December 1943] (in German). München, Germany: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH & Co. KG. 1985. ISBN978-3-423-05944-2.
Die Wehrmachtberichte 1939–1945 Band 3, 1. Januar 1944 bis 9. Mai 1945 [The Wehrmacht Reports 1939–1945 Volume 3, 1 January 1944 to 9 May 1945] (in German). München, Germany: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH & Co. KG. 1985. ISBN978-3-423-05944-2.
Delete multiples People aren't generally grouped together on the numeric citational basis (i.e. 8 times is not profoundly different from 10 times, or 5 times for that matter). This is a poor choice of subcategory. The main category content seems to be at a manageable number and the category serves the purpose of grouping personnel of military note, but if division is necessary we could do so in many better ways (by rank, service or station, for example). SFB 17:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into groups. The root directory seems to be for those methioned once. Twice is a significant category. However all the "more than twice" categories can probably be merged. I know that this is effectively an award category, but this is a natioanl award. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All/Neutral on Deletion I'm not sure this is defining but I'm way outside my areas of expertise here. If kept, merge them into one category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning given by Carlossuarez46. Similar categories in the past, if memory serves me a category for "Recipients of Army Achievement Medal", was deleted. This is about the same level of notoriety; therefore this article should be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not wanting to nitpick, but it's a category, RCLC, not an article. And a mention in the Wehrmachtbericht is not even remotely comparable to the award of the Army Achievement Medal. The German system was very different from the US or UK/Commonwealth systems. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per MisterBee1966. The context in which one's name is mentioned is an important aspect; the frequency of mention in some contexts would be a defining characteristic. If a person is discussed once in the Presidential Daily Briefing, it's significant; the number of discussions would be be a meaningful characteristic of their national importance; either friend or foe. I note that Super Bowl ring#Most Super Bowl rings lists notable individuals who have won multiple Super Bowl rings. To quote Peacemaker67, "it's a category". SBaker43 (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is basically a type of award. It comes under the criteria for award categories, and does not meet any of the rare exceptions for award categories and should be deleted.04:31, 5 December 2014 (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.
