Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 14 February 16 >

February 15[edit]

Category:Ethnic groups in the Republic of Macedonia[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: rename to Category:Ethnic groups in North Macedonia. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the country has been renamed and all major international orgs are making the change. rename all subcats as well. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated, for most of the same reasons as the discusison below.
@Legacypac, would you be kind enough to withdraw this nomination, on the same basis? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate in a manner you feel appropriate and I'll consider withdrawing in favor of a better nomination to fix these cats. I accidentally learned there is no problem with creating more than one discussion about a page. If it were not for the Admin only restrictions I'd just fix the cats systematically. Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: there is a problem with having more than one simultaneous discussion about a page. It creates a forked debate, with the possibility of different outcomes. That's why WP:MULTI and WP:TALKFORK are long-standing guidelines.
In any case, since this nomination only lists and tags one category, it cannot rename any other categories.
So I will omit Category:Ethnic groups in the Republic of Macedonia from the group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CUTPASTE, I have reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 9 March 2019 (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.

Republic of Macedonia[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: withdrawn by nominator. Thanks to @HapHaxion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the Prespa agreement, the country was renamed. All categories identified with the former name under this one (all relevant subcategories), as well as any templates or important articles (including lists of years), should be adjusted to reflect the new name (unless the official name of the "Republic of North Macedonia" is required. As "Republic of..." is no longer required to differentiate the country from the Greek province of Macedonia except under official circumstances, North Macedonia is an acceptable name. Discussion added at the request of BrownHairedGirl. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 17:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A CFD discussion can rename only those categories which have been listed and tagged. So this CFD as nominated can rename only the top-level Category:Republic of Macedonia
  2. CFD can only renamed categories, not articles or template (except stub templates)
  3. It is unlikely that all the sub-categories should be renamed. As we found in the Swaziland/Eswatini CFD at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018_November_5#Swaziland, some categories related to proper names and to participation in international organisations, and those cases needed more careful examination.
In most cases, this renaming will be appropriate, but I am sure there will also be some exceptions here.
So I invite HapHaxion to withdraw this nomination. If they are kind enough do so, I will then open a new CFD which lists all the subcats, so that editors can identify any exceptions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously support per WP:C2D and the discussion at Talk:North Macedonia, but... shouldn't the subcategories be nominated as well? I would support withdrawal in favour of comprehensive nomination as suggested by User:BrownHairedGirl. I especially expect more complicated discussions about the case of Macedonian foo vs. North Macedonian foo vs. Foo of/from North Macedonia, while I personally favour North Macedonian foo to be the standard, with exceptions. These may be worth a separate nomination to help reach consensus. Place Clichy (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Place Clichy: I like that idea of separating out the adjectival forms. If @HapHaxion withdraws this nom, then I will do the group nomination in 2 parts: one for the noun form, one for the adjectival form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination temporarily withdrawn per above request, so as to fully allow listing of all affected categories (thank you to BrownHairedGirl for offering to do this in my place, I am a bit new at this list process). Some categories referring to historical names and participation in international organizations may be left as is. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 20:35, 15 February 2019 (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.

Films by editor[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: delete all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: While editing is a very important aspect in the film making process, I'm not sure who edited it is defining to the film itself. Director, yes; editor, no. Also seems like a path towards overcategorization of films by job. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and this discussion. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep disagree as editing can make or ruin a film, take Quantum of Solace for example that had atrociously flashy editing compared to the great editing in Casino Royale (2000s version) Atlantic306 (talk)
But is the individual who edited the film defining? Do either of those articles mention the editor in the lead? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining: "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining." We could categorize films by anything from director to number of key grips named in the credits. Editing is certainly important to filmmaking (there is an Oscar for it, resulting in this rather clumsily-titled category), but films in general, and individual films, are seldom described as "edited by ___" by reliable sources, aside from rote credit listings or the relatively few films that receive major awards specifically for editing. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If film editors get media industry attention and awards, then this seems to be defining. Dimadick (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If film editors get media industry attention and awards that makes them notable, it does not make them a defining aspect to the films they edited. "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". I wouldn't say the editor of the film is commonly and consistently mentioned in reliable sources discussing the film. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: might as well add the container category Category:Films by American editors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to the discussion for thoroughness, although it would be subject to speedy deletion if all the individual editor categories were deleted. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The editor is not a primary creator of the work in question, therefore this is not a defining category. What next, films by key grip?, etc, etc... --woodensuperman 14:10, 11 March 2019 (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:WikiProject Republic of Macedonia articles[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: rename. The project itself was renamed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_North_Macedonia#Requested_move_15_February_2019. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This cat and all subcats that refer to the current country of North Macedonia need to be updated to either say "Republic of North Macedonia" or just "North Macedonia" (and drop the "Republic"). The mother page Republic of Macedonia was renamed to North Macedonia by a well attended RFC (see talk there) so this is just housekeeping. Legacypac (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2019 (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:People of Celtic descent[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: delete along with the "Fooian people of Celtic descent" sub-cats also nominated and listed below.
As for the re-creation of Category:Celtic people within Category:Celts, it is providing a function of separating biographies from content about the ethnolinguistic group. Given the low participation at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_10#Category:Celtic_people, I will leave it, and not re-merge it under WP:G4. I will record this at category talk:Celtic people. – Fayenatic London 20:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the modern nations to whom it is applied are factually incorrect (it is at best contestable and can cause lenghty disputes), and it over-categorises in some cases. I have asked one of the editors who has so added the category, User:DuncanHill, to provide a rationale for such applications. None is forthcoming. I hoped there would be some use in retaining it for those to whom it genuinely does apply (Diviciacus (Aedui), Vercassivellaunos, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, et al), yet it seems we cannot have one without the other; in any case other editors have so used it too. Thus with some reluctance I propose it for deletion. Fergananim (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fergananim, please either add the subcats to this nom, or withdraw it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have reverted @Fergananim's removal from this category of Category:Australian people of Celtic descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) etc. It is utterly bizarre to claim, as Fergananim ddi in edit summaries, that it is incorrect to place "Cat:Bar people of Fooian descent" as a subcat of "Cat:People of Fooian descent". And Fergananim, please don't edit-war over it. You were alreday been reverted once by @DuncanHill; now, per WP:BRD it's time to discuss. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People of Fooian descent??? I have no idea about this Fergananim (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: The nomination was amended to include "the lot", see below. Would you consider to review your opinion? Place Clichy (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, I might have considered doing so if the other categories had been part of the nom from the outset, and if the nominator had not acted in such as shamefully underhand way by depopulating categories.
But given the way this went, the discussion is a WP:TRAINWRECK, and should be procedurally closed as such. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I recon the original nominator behave very poorly within and outside the nomination, however other editors such as Marcocapelle and myself have worked to list and nominate all categories that should have been grouped in the first place. A WP:TRAINWRECK would be if people voiced separate opinions, wanting to keep some categories and delete some other, however this is not the case here as most editors seem to consider that all these Celtic descent categories should either go or be containerized. If I understand correctly you "would enthusiastically support a proposal to delete the lot as too fuzzy", isn't it precisely what we have at issue here with the amended renomination? Place Clichy (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Place Clichy, but I stand by my view that trying to magic a consensus out of a WP:TRAINWRECK is a v bad way to proceed. When the first screenful of the discussion is spent tackling nonsense and misconduct by the nominator, other editors are deterred from participating. So the outcome is unlikely be a valid consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: No problem, I'm just trying to contribute to the discussion here, not attempting to extort an opinion from someone contrary to what you feel. Still what we have here is the opposite of a WP:TRAINWRECK: it is not a grouped nomination of too many categories that have different merits, it is the nomination of too few categories... do we have a name for that? However in terms of process I am afraid if we are not sometimes stuck when both too large and too small nominations would be objected on procedural grounds. This seems to me an unfair system bias towards the status quo regarding large chunks of problematic categories (I'm not saying that it is the case here). Place Clichy (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The system bias is against botched nominations of all types. Some are botched by including too many disparate topics. Some are botched by being incomplete sets, like here. Others are botched by the nominator playing disruptive games, as happened here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We had a similar situation a few months ago when Brough87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) emptied the "Celtic" categories, then nominated them for deletion as empty. As I recall he made a number of false claims about my involvement in the creation or addition of the categories. He was topic banned. The nominator here, who I must make clear says he is not Brough87, has made false claims on several occasions about my involvement in these categories, including counter-factual claims that I created them. My involvement has chiefly been to revert undiscussed and/or out of process removal of established categories. I have repeatedly told the nominator not to empty the categories, but to nominate them for deletion if he thinks that is appropriate. His response up to now has been to tell me to nominate them! I would like to thank BrownHairedHirl for pinging me in this discussion. I would also note that the nominator opened a DRN case against me without bothering to tell me - I only found out about it after it had been closed. I think the nominator has acted throughout with extreme bad faith. DuncanHill (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments - The category has not been marked as having been nominated for deletion, so watchers will not be aware of this discussion. I am sure this omission was shear incompetence, not a bad faith attempt to evade scrutiny. In regards to Brough87, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive983#Editor emptying masses of categories, then nominating them for speedy because they are empty. Also BRD issues.. DuncanHill (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored a significant number of subcats to the nominated category, which the nominator had removed. I have made similar reversions to other categories and subcats as they all should be nominated together or not at all, as BHG said above. DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I was indeed mistaken in thinking DuncanHill created the category. For that I apologise. However DuncanHill HAS added the category to a number of others, without a clear explanation why. As a result, and because simply deleting and reverting them achieves nothing, I propose deletion due to its factual inaccuracy and over-categorisation. While I grant I have exasperated DuncanHill, I have not acted out of bad faith. Fergananim (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I added it to a lot of categories - I have restored the category when it was removed out of process. Yet again, Ferganim is lying about my contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said, I removed it because there was no clear reason to link so many in the first place. When asked why, you failed to give good reasons. Thus I felt I had to propose deletion as such deletes and reverts could go on ad infinitum. If you can give good reasons, here is the place for it. Fergananim (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the discussion above, change vote to containerize. Meanwhile deleting or merging is out of the question while there are many appropriate related subcategories. However the articles that are currently directly in it mostly belong in and should be moved to Category:People from Roman Gaul. In the future we may discuss the whole tree in a fresh nomination, but this is not the right time for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although this proposal wasn't put together correctly, I support the elimination of "Celtic descent" categories as it is currently being utilized. I see subcategories included in these categories of Irish and Scottish nationality/ethnicity so it looks like it is being used similarly to subcategories put under United Kingdom categories. I think we need a better definition of whom and what period of time "Celtic" refers to. It is not helpful if it is just another level of descent between Irish/Scottish/Welsh people of all time periods and all places and higher level British/UK/European categories. What use it is to have Filipino people of Celtic descent and Nigerian people of Celtic descent categories when they are just stand-ins for categories for Irish or Scottish descent? Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in principle, but let's solve that in a fresh nomination. The subcategories have not been nominated now. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion as it's an amazingly wooly and fuzzy category. Is someone really "of Celtic descent" because their grandmother came from Ireland? Even though that grandmother was actually of Viking descent; or Anglo-Norman; or Nigerian, for that matter? Would also support a re-listing which included all of the associated sub-cats "x people of Celtic descent". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion of this category and all of Celtic descent subcategories. These are mixing several largely unrelated things : Ancient Celtic people (Gauls, Britons), modern people of perceived Celtic ethnicity (which should be individually tagged in Category:Celtic people according to WP:EGRS) and people of descent from places like Brittany and Galicia. One is not of Celtic ethnicity because their grandmother was born in Galicia! Place Clichy (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete applying a concept that has not realiztically described any nation for the last 700 years is just a bad plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I see little objection in principle to containers that group Scottish, Irish, and Welsh together; possibly also Cornish and Breton, but only as container categories. Nevertheless, Celtic are not a particularly useful description, so that I would not oppose wholesale deletion. All articles (mainly biographies) ought to be distributed to more specific categories. However, I do not think there has been a Celtic language in Galicia or France (excluding Brittany), let along Galatia (in Turkey), by which we can characterise people as Celts. I would accordingly want this heavily purged, if kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment --- All such container categories do is retain the notion that all these nations are a block that are the common ethnic and cultural opposite of the English. If such categories are to be used, they must be on some evidential basis, not 19th century romance and racism. This goes to the heart of why I raised this in the first place; it has nothing to back it but popular beliefs based on misunderstood archaeological, historical, linguistic and now genetic evidences. I (and everyone else) still await ANY reasons for so applying them from either DuncanHill or BrownHairedGirl. As they added them, surely they had reasons? Fergananim (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fergananim: most editors here seem to agree with you, but your argument would have even more strength if you took the time to nominate individually in a single discussion all the relevant subcategories (there are 20 of them, see list. Someone needs to take the time to do it, there's no way around it. Place Clichy (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Relisting comment, I am adding a procedural nomination of the Celtic descent subcategories. Nominator should better have done that right at the beginning of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Fooian people of Celtic descent (at worst containerise). The articles then need to be removed manually to Category:People from Roman Gaul or Category:Ancient Gauls (or something similar). The former can include the sub-Roman period until there was a Frankish kingdom. The latter should cover those before the Roman conquest and the enemies of Rome during it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "The former can include the sub-Roman period until there was a Frankish kingdom." Problem: The Kingdom of Soissons was controlled by Gallo-Romans and continued ruling areas of Gaul until 486. The successor kingdom of Francia had a substantial population of Gallo-Romans: "Throughout the Frankish kingdoms there continued to be Gallo-Romans subject to Roman law and clergy subject to canon law.". Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2019 (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:Judges of Australian superior courts[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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an ill-defined category that solely houses useful subcategories for judges of specific courts, and isn't repeated in another country that I can find. The "superior" focus means that there is no place for the many articles on judges of lower-level courts to be categorised by the court they sit on. New Zealand has Category:New Zealand judges by court - that approach seems to cover the purpose of this category in a better way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This would require removing the category from Category:Australian superior courts, which seems to me to be a retrograde step. It may be helpful to create Category:Australian judges by court as a new parent category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl: - what is the value of the category being in Category:Australian superior courts, specifically, that is so important that it involves complicating the broader category tree? If we create a new parent category over the top of the existing category, lower-level courts would be in the parent category, while higher-level courts would be buried further down the tree in this one. Readers looking for the contents of this category are far more likely to find it from a "judge in court" category tree than knowing that they need to look in the superior courts category. This structure is not used anywhere else on Wikipedia for equivalent articles, and I don't see the point of forcing Australia to stick with it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @The Drover's Wife: I think that the judges should be grouped in the same way as the courts.
There are various ways of slicing the court system of a federal country like Australia. The US categories are divided between Category:United States federal judges, Category:American state court judges and Category:County judges in the United States, and there may be a case for a similar structure in Australia, or some other alternative to the current "superior courts" grouping. But for now the distinction in the Australian court system is made on the basis of superior courts, and I don't see any gain in grouping judges differently to the courts.
The advantage of retaining it is that it keeps a distinct set of judges who operate at the level of case which sets precedent. I don't see any gain from mixing these judges with those of lower courts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with @BrownHairedGirl: that it is preferable for judges should be grouped in the same way as courts. The problem as I see it is that I also agree with the rationale of @The Drover's Wife: because Category:Australian superior courts is similarly an ill-defined category that mostly consists of useful subcategories. In Australia "superior court" is not synonymous with supreme court or precedence - it has a variable legal meaning & includes some courts of limited jurisdiction, eg Family Court and NSW Land & Environment Court, see Judiciary of Australia#Superior and inferior courts. It seems unlikely that readers will know or care whether a particular court was a superior court or not. As for mixing judges, few district court judges are sufficiently notable for an article and I cannot find a category for judges of district courts or any other inferior court. I would suggest we start with the proposed renaming, then if there are sufficient judges of other courts to be listed, they can be added. One subtle tweak would be to sort them by the name of the court rather than the state eg Australian judges by court|Supreme Court of New South Wales rather than the current Category:Judges of Australian superior courts|New South Wales, which duplicates the effect of Category:Australian courts by jurisdiction. We can go through a similar exercise to re-organise the Courts category. Find bruce (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just on one point you mentioned: I specifically brought this up because we do have quite a few articles on lower-level judges: there's a number of County Court judges with articles, and although we don't really have articles on District Court judges that are solely notable for being District Court judges, I think there's enough of them with articles in some states to warrant being grouped by court. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2019 (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:Virginia Tech Sports Hall of Fame Inductees[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: delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Induction into this hall of fame of minor note is not defining for the subjects of the constituent articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_15&oldid=1073192023"