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: More accurately describes category contents. Avoids the issue of whether some of these things are science or pseudoscience. (t · c) buidhe 22:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would prefer "Ethically disputed research practices" or "Ethically disputed scholarly practices" to avoid the same sort of discussion on whether the practices are academic or not. Jmill1806 (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2020 (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.
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one article in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now While these small locations presumably have had more than five mayors, most would be non-notable. No objection to recreating any if they ever reach 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2020 (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:American military personnel who served in the Pacific theatre of World War II[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.
Nominator's rationale: Definitely a non-defining trait for the members of this category. While service in the United States Army or Navy are defining traits, this, less so. Lettlerhello • contribs 02:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Reparent 2 Subcategories Looked through these and they're consistently under the WWII Navy/Army Personnel categories. For people known for non-military accomplishments, this seems non-defining and for long-term military they were involved in multiple campaigns. (The two subcategories both need to be reparented under Category:Pacific theatre of World War II though.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Reparent 2 Subcategories --Just N. (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2020 (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.
During WWII, the Norway Debate included an unsuccessful vote of no confidence by the British House of Commons which lead to Neville Chamberlain's voluntary resignation as prime minister and replacement with Winston Churchill. This was certainly a key historical moment but all of these people would already be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article as Members of Parliament (MPs), so they don't seemed defined by this participation. By definition, everyone in this category is already in Category:UK MPs 1935–1945, a period with plenty of other key historical moments. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify within the article. Just because someone was an MP at the time doesn't mean they actually participated in the debate; they may have not be in the house during it, or they may have only listened without speaking. And it was a very important debate. Having said that I don't think that category is justified - adding a list of the MPs within the article, however, might be appropriate. Grutness...wha? 11:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article Discussion@Grutness and Marcocapelle: I know I shoehorn lists into award articles on an almost daily basis, but they are generally stub and start class while the Norway Debate is a "Good Article" so I'm going to be less bold. I added the current category contents right here in the talk page and requested feedback from editors there. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome on that talk page. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PERFCAT and hesitant about listification because many of the MPs in this category did not have a significant role in the debate at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PERFCAT. I am dubious about listifying, rather than opposed. If we have a list, it should probably be for those who spoke in the debate, rather than voting, which every MP present will have done. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2020 (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:Participants in the Moscow Victory Day Parade of 1945[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.
Delete per nom. Not "defining". Nigej (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being in a particular parade is non-defining for those who did so. This if kept would lead to lots of performer by performance categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2020 (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.
