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:delete. – FayenaticLondon 23:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is a useful category, but if it is and it's intended for user pages then it should be renamed to something like "Anglophobe Wikipedians". DexDor (talk) 21:53, 29 September 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:Florida Registered Historic Place stubs[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:merge/rename as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And all stub tags for these categories, accordingly
Nominator's rationale: No other state has a split of the NRHP stub categories into structure and district categories - there's a top-level state NRHP stub category, split (if necessary) with county tags and with regional/county categories. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:10, 29 September 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 result of the discussion was:delete; contains nothing but Category:People from Campeche, Campeche, so is largely redundant at this stage. Can be created again in the future if circumstances warrant.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlaps with People from Campeche, Campeche José Gnudista (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the merge request at Talk:Campeche, Campeche should be dealt with first, and that will provide an indicator of whether this category is required. SFB 21:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Find a merge target, rather than deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:32, 13 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.
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:delete; category was empty at close (see discussion). OK to make a list. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We (en wp) do not normally categorize people by which organizations they are a member of (except possibly where being a senior member of a political party etc is their reason for notability) and especially not where it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic (e.g. it's not even mentioned in the person's article). This might be appropriate for a list (which also has the advantage that a note can be added if people leave the organization etc). If categorization of people by organizations they are a member of was widely used then some articles would be in many such categories. DexDor (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete Not significant enough for a categorisation, but perfectly viable as a list format which can clarify the level of involvement. SFB 21:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support SFB, but better still plain Delete. We do not normally even list people by memberships of clubs and pressure groups. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's rationale: Given the arguably high level of interest among readers of English in topics on the Israeli-Arab peace process, and the nature of Peace Now as a long-standing nonpartisan movement protesting Israeli government policy, the category mechanism provides unique and easily accessible information through its appearance on the mainspace page of members notable for their activities in the Arts, Letters and Sciences rather than primarily as politicians. A List of Peace Now members (nonexistent in :he:WP) would not serve this purpose; such a list would be accessed primarily by searching on the organization's name and only secondarily appearing is "What links here" for an individual member's page. I populated the category here according to its equivalent in the Hebrew Wikipedia, and indeed neglected to review the individual page's existing content for mention of Peace Now membership. An authoritative measure at this point would be for an editor to cite published information with the names of charter or founding members; I have yet to find such a source. -- Deborahjay (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete (Creator's conclusion): Based on the above discussion and reading the WP:NONDEF editing guidelines, I acknowledge that the Category:Members of Peace Now is a nondefining characteristic for the great majority of the pages in this WP project. I'll delete the category and the subsequent red links on the individual pages. Thank you for advising! -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:47, 1 November 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 result of the discussion was:delete for now. – FayenaticLondon 23:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per classic WP:SMALLCAT. There are only 2 articles with little room for growth. No objection to recreating later though, if needed. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's really a classic SMALLCAT - in theory, we could have articles such as Smocking in 19th century Britain, Smocking Arts Guild of America etc. If deleted then it should be on the basis that it can be recreated if wp gets more articles on the topic. DexDor (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I think something is a smallcat just because I lack imagination on what articles can be created. If I'm proven wrong later, so be it, we'll recreate the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 1 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.
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:Upmerge/Delete (equivalent as the category is empty) (NAC). DexDor (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary, orphaned cat. Only two members, both of which are at AfD and unlikely to survive. AussieLegend (✉) 00:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to predict what the outcome of the AFD discussions will be. Also, if and when Category:Wander Over Yonder is nominated separately, we can discuss the merits of that proposal in the context of whatever articles are left. In any case, I'm mostly agreeing with you: this category should go. (-: RevelationDirect (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both character articles have now been redirected after AfDs. As a result, the category is empty. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:08, 22 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.
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:Upmerge/Delete (equivalent as the category is empty) (NAC). DexDor (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary, orphaned cat. Only one member and that is at AfD and unlikely to survive AussieLegend (✉) 00:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to predict what the outcome of the AFD discussions will be. Also, if and when Category:Wander Over Yonder is nominated separately, we can discuss the merits of that proposal in the context of whatever articles are left. In any case, I'm mostly agreeing with you: this category should go. (-: RevelationDirect (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent -- For most franchises, my rule is "one franchise, one category". Peterkingiron (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only member of ths category did not survive AfD and has been redirected, leaving this category empty. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:33, 21 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.
