Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 2 June 4 >

June 3[edit]

Category:Founder of Sufi Order[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One article with no possibility of expansion Editor2020 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 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:User hy-wst[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. In this case, both "hy-wst" and "hyw" are being used to refer to Western Armenian. The ISO 639-3 code for the language is "hyw", and it would make more sense for these user categories to be named in line with the standard. 1857a (talk) 21:18, 3 June 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.

Video game franchises disestablished[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting the following categories:

The parent category was recently deleted in this discussion, but the whole tree was not nominated along with it. The argument from that discussion—that the term "disestablished" makes zero sense when it comes to video game franchises—still applies here. bibliomaniac15 18:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per prior discussion. It is extremely rare that we know reliably that a video game franchise is fully disestablished; most of the time its just held onto without any games for a long time and then the rightholder comes back with a surprise title. --Masem (t) 18:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion of parent cat. -- ferret (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per previous. Oops, I assumed the subcats were co-nommed. Guess not. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and prev discussion. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable / crystal ball. IP may seem dead, but it can live for a very long time without commercial use. It can rise from the grave at any... GWRGAAH! Shooterwalker (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to match the outcome of the parent category, on which I have no opinion. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 4 June 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:Members of the Foolish Club[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/delete. bibliomaniac15 18:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorization by trivial characteristic. Almost all are already in Category:American Football League owners. User:Namiba 13:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Topic article Foolish Club is enough to cover the specificity of these 8 owners, and there is zero potential for expansion. Place Clichy (talk) 12:36, 8 June 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:Asian-American movement activists[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: keep the first, delete the rest. – Fayenatic London 15:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the larger Category:American activists by ethnic or national origin. While they were initially formed to include only those involved in the Asian American movement, I think it makes more sense to include the larger community. User:Namiba 12:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In activism, descent and ethnicity often play a major role. As you may know, I've nominated dozens of descent categories for deletion. Generally, journalists do not practice journalism differently because of their ethnicity. However, in the case of activists, many of whom are mobilizing and advocating on behalf of their ethnic group, it is a meaningful characteristic.--User:Namiba 19:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal of User:PlaceClichy below (keep Asian, delete subcats) is the better version of what I intended here. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both the nom and the alt merge. For most of the discussions in this vein, descent and occupation hasn't been a meaningful intersection. Not so with activism, because the activism in this case is directly related to issues involving race and ethnicity. My worry is that something like "American activists of Chinese descent" isn't actually synonymous with "Chinese-American movement activists." To me the former sounds like it could be Chinese Americans who are activists about any given issue, while the second is actually specifically about activism about Chinese American issues. bibliomaniac15 19:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Asian-American movement activists as is, delete the rest. The Asian American movement is a specific activist movement of the 1970s, which is defining. It is not (should not be) a generic category for Asian-American activists of any cause or any movement. The other categories have been created with similar names, but there is no Chinese-American movement, or Filipino-American movement, or Japanese-American movement. Place Clichy (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Each diaspora has a unique history in the United States. Per WP:OCEGRS, the activists from each diaspora are "combinations which are themselves "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." Taking the Filipinos as an example, we see this from the University of Washington, this book published in the Netherlands just this year, or this article published by the Smithsonian. Asians, who hail from a continent including billions of people and dozens of nations, cannot simply be lumped together, nor can their diaspora communities. I agree that the Asian-American movement is in itself a unique topic, but activists from Asian countries have been involved in every major social movement of the last 150 years in the United States. Perhaps Category:Activists for Asian-American rights could be created for Category:Asian-American movement activists as well as the diaspora categories suggested in the original post.--User:Namiba 16:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More examples of the uniqueness of each diaspora group: China: [1], [2], [3]--16:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a wrong reading of WP:OCEGRS, ignoring the fact that it refers to "combinations". It is the combination of e.g. Chinese American activists which must be a unique topic in its own right. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not following. One of the examples given in WP:OCEGRS of a proper intersection is African-American musicians. How is Category:American activists of Filipino descent (or Category:Filipino-American activists) any less valid? There is a distinct history of both with both academic and popular histories written about them. Being Filipino had a direct relationship with their activism as much as being African American had on their music.--User:Namiba 17:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines require that categories of this nature are 1) a recognized combination in its own right. (This has been proven) 2) a "substantial and encyclopedic head article" could be written (this is evident, given the plethora of independent sources covering the subject in detail). 3) "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career." Given that these activists were campaigning on behalf of their own diaspora, this is clearly the case. There is no policy-based reason to oppose these categories.--User:Namiba 21:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba: The difference to be made is between people who are engaged in community activism, and people who simultaneously are e.g. of Filipino-American heritage and are activists in a completely unrelated field (e.g. climate change or healthcare). Out of the first set, you will sometimes find activists of unrelated cultural backgrounds: I have for instance seen quite a few spouses very active in diaspora communities in which they did not grow up themselves, and it has been well documented that many White people actively participated in the African American civil rights movement of the 1950s-60s. This type of activism is worthy of categorization, but only if it is in itself what the person is notable for, not just where they are from. The way the categories are currently used, and the target names you suggest, only attract categorization of the merely coincidental intersections of unrelated characteristics. Place Clichy (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that, when activism tied to one's ethnicity or diaspora community is directly related to one's notability, there should be a category for it. There are activists like Bambu who are organizing Filipinos in the 21st century but are unrelated to the historical Asian-American movement. Under your scenario, he would not be included in any such category and yet it is obviously defining.--User:Namiba 10:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article Bambu (rapper) says that he was a member (secretary-general, actually) of an organization called Kabataang Makabayan. That may perhaps be defining. Evoking themes related to Filipino diaspora experience in rap songs is maybe less defining. Also, you seem to take it for granted (or at least entertain the confusion) that one's activism and one's ethnicity or diaspora are necessarily connected. What is someone of Filipino ancestry becomes notable for their climate activism? Both current and proposed names for these categories would imho generate confusion that they can be categorized as Filipino whatever activist, while this intersection would mean nothing. Place Clichy (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I dislike activists categories because our definition of activist includes those who are inactive and those who take opposite sides in the debate. I also dislike "descent" categories because they leave us unable to cogently and objectively identify how much descent someone must be (100%, 50%, one drop rule) to be notably of that descent, and how far back can it go, what sources say someone is of that much descent and that recently, and ultimately what do people with that much and that recent descent do differently than those with a little more or less or a little more or less recent? see WP:OCEGRS. However, the two concepts conflated by the nominator are distinct: not all Category:American activists of Japanese descent (however defined) have things to do with the "Japanese-American movement"; they may be climate change activists, consumer activists, 2nd amendment activists, or whatever that have nothing to do with any Japanese-American movement. Same is true for the other named categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Other than the first point about 'activists' which is not majoritarian, yes. I can go with that as a path of least conflict. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 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:Amusement rides based on works by Bill Finger[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial, non-defining, under-populated (it has one entry, another category), etc. Calton | Talk 10:50, 3 June 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:Mario (franchise)[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. – Fayenatic London 10:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These were recently moved via the Speedy page on the grounds of ambiguity, since e.g. Mario is about the character and Mario (franchise) is the lead article for the category. However, this is unnecessary, since both articles are close to the point of the category – it's not as if one was for e.g. a city by that name. If these categories are left, then the various sub-cats may be put up for speedy renaming to include "(franchise)", which IMHO would be awkward, unnecessary and long-winded.
The case of Captain Scarlet is similar. The long name could be seen as the original as opposed to the sequel series, but this is not the intention. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are several million categories, whose prime purpose is navigation (see lead of WP:CAT). That navigation process is assisted by consistency, as is maintenance.
We maintain consistency by a few simple rules which (the speedy criteria at WP:CFDS), which allows this maintenance to be done without too much bureaucracy. I know that Fayenatic means well, but if we start micro-scrutinising edge cases then we will divert scarce energies into issues of marginal benefit to readers or editors … and also make it harder to identify anomalies.
I found these categories as result of the list-making process for WP:BHGbot 6, when @Oculi raised the issue of Eponymous categories which don't include their eponymous article. My first pass on a small sample found over 300 such categories, most of which are cases where the category is named after a disambiguation page; I have much longer list to process now, which I expect will yield a few thousand more. I have begun cleaning that up by nominating the categories for speedy renaming, with ~about 20 categories renamed so far. If that process is going to diverted into finding exceptions to WP:C2D which will become permanent fixtures on the cleanup list, then I will abandon the task. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These should be named after the main articles. Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, at least we will have a full CFD discussion to back the outcome. IMHO a better way round it would be an WP:RM to rename Indiana Jones to Indiana Jones (character) etc., and the franchise articles to the short names; then the category names would also be kept short. – Fayenatic London 20:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the approach I would favor. This is an article space conversation. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Oppose/Wrong Venue Rename the main articles in an WP:RM then do a speedy for any associated categories using WP:C2D. Keeping this in the right forum helps bring more knowledgeable editors into the discussion on this topic. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree with the general feeling that it is the articles that should be moved; there may be some reason why article moves will in fact fail. Category names should follow the article except for a few cases where ambiguity persists (Birmingham being the classic example). There was a long discussion about Hulk; I expect much of the world's population will think this is a Brazilian footballer. Oculi (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have started RM discussions at Talk:Indiana_Jones_(franchise)#Requested_move_8_June_2020 and Talk:Captain Scarlet. In the case of Mario, the category page does say that it is for "Articles pertaining to Nintendo's official mascot Mario and all related things", so Mario the character is in fact the primary topic, and the move was mistaken; IMHO that article should be in both the main category and in Category:Mario characters. I propose to withdraw this discussion and start a new one for Mario alone, unless any of the participants can show that this would be procedurally incorrect. – Fayenatic London 11:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Captain Scarlet move. There is at present no franchise overview article (may or may not ever be needed), and since there are multiple characters/elements which span both series and both films, it makes sense that the category containing them not be named for only the first series. Essentially, make this a category with no "main article" and change the header of the category to explain that it covers the whole franchise. -- Netoholic @ 12:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Netoholic: I think you mean you support renaming the category (not just the article) – thanks. The category header already refers to both series; how else do you think it needs changing? – Fayenatic London 21:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: if the disambiguation page is moved, and the location Captain Scarlet becomes a redirect to the original series on the grounds that there is no main topic between the two series and the character, would that resolve your objections against renaming the category back to Category:Captain Scarlet? – Fayenatic London 21:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic, my only concern is that the category name should match the name of the head article, unless the category name needs extra disambiguation (as in the example of Birmingham). If I understand your proposal, it would leave the head article at its current title, so the category should match. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BrownHairedGirl: You seem to be avoiding the point that in the case of Captain Scarlet there is no head article for the franchise as a whole. There is therefore no need for the category to match one of the sub-topics. – Fayenatic London 06:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe someone should create one head article then. IMO it's certainly notable. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - The main article for Category:Indiana Jones (franchise) has been moved to primary (Talk:Indiana Jones#Requested move 8 June 2020), so the category should follow to become Category:Indiana Jones. -- Netoholic @ 16:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:Indiana Jones (franchise) to Category:Indiana Jones, as the franchise article is at Indiana Jones. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is now messy. The Mario head category was moved on the grounds that it did not include its eponymous article, but that was easily fixed by adding the article Mario, which was always stated on the category page to be the main article; see [4] (which seems to be accepted). The rationale for the opposition to Indiana Jones has likewise been overcome; indeed, it is eligible for a speedy nomination. Captain Scarlet is the only case where the short page name remains a disambiguation page, as there was no consensus for a move at Talk:Captain Scarlet, although there was no opposition to user:Ortizesp's suggestion to move the dab page and redirect Captain Scarlet to Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons. I therefore withdraw this nomination and will start again (as no-one has given a thumbs down to that suggestion above). – Fayenatic London 10:27, 20 June 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:Middle-earth eras[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. In practice, this looks more like what Hog Farm has proposed, dispersing them to better categories. bibliomaniac15 18:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category for a single article, and several redirects to the same article. This is a WP:SMALLCAT that can't be expanded beyond the singular article. The redirects in the category are what's left of articles from a more lax time in Wikipedia's history. Long since then, all the suitable content (and then some) has been merged to the main article. The current merged article has existed in this overall state for years, and there is no foreseeable way to expand those sections into multiple viable articles. Nor should we highlight these non-viable article titles (though suitable search terms) when there's no way to reliably expand them -- no suitable references that meet the notability guideline for third parties sources, or encyclopedic information that meets the standard of WP:NOTPLOT. I'm not used to category for deletion procedure, but hoping for a good faith discussion about this, and hopefully not a technical process issue. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one actual article and a load of redirects. Rathfelder (talk) 19:24, 3 June 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:Spanish-language YouTubers[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. bibliomaniac15 17:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the two others in Category:YouTube channels by language, also increasing the scope a bit. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is redundant to classify YouTubers as Spanish speaking when they live in an overwhelmingly Spanish-speaking country anyway. If kept, it should become the parent category of many categories by nationality, e.g. Category:Argentine YouTubers. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 03:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Spanish-language YouTubers is redundant (there should be a category for YouTubers of Colombian descent, Spanish descent, etc. when applicable). Once the category is renamed, any articles that are about individuals rather than about channels should be removed from the category. There are enough channels where this category warrants existence. Soulbust (talk) 08:32, 3 June 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:Technical YouTubers[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. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement about renaming away from the current name, although a future discussion may better clarify the best name for the category. bibliomaniac15 17:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing this rename because there is a distinction between YouTubers who make "technical" content (i.e. something more "technician"–like, or instructional, or of a repairing nature), and "technology" content (like Linus Tech Tips or Marques Brownlee, who review technology products, etc.). However, I recognize there is enough overlap that would make a splitting of the category redundant/superfluous. So I strongly suggest this cat be renamed to "Tech YouTubers" as to not conflate the two, and to encompass all YouTubers who make content about technology. Soulbust (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I wonder if this rename is sufficiently effective in clarifying the category's purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, I will leave that up to anyone who adds to this discussion, but I will say it certainly makes it less clunky sounding. For what it's worth, I found plenty of sources referring to YouTubers and channels in this genre as "Tech" YouTubers and "Technology" channels. Those sources include mainstream institutions, publications, and outlets.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
I think those sources definitely make it clear that "Tech YouTuber" is the common name for this occupation. A Google News search of "Tech YouTuber" yields over 1,800 results,[9] whereas a search for "Technical YouTuber" yields only 4.[10] A "Technology YouTuber", by the way yields 200+ results.[11] Soulbust (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Technical? I thought Tech was short for Technology. Either way, Tech is the most common colloquial term. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 20:31, 26 June 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.

References

  1. ^ Meredith Somers (November 4, 2019). "A tech YouTuber's guide to building a brand". MIT Sloan School of Management.
  2. ^ Ryan Duffy (June 4, 2020). "CES 2021 Will Happen in Las Vegas". Morning Brew.
  3. ^ Alexa Weber Morales (November 6, 2019). "Want A Non-Traditional Developer Career? Become A Tech YouTuber". Forbes.
  4. ^ Louisa Griffin (June 5, 2020). "YouTuber Marques Brownlee urges fans to 'actively work against racism' as he speaks out on Black Lives Matter movement". Metro.
  5. ^ Adam Lashinsky; Aaron Pressman (June 4, 2020). "The digital transformation is no joke". Fortune.
  6. ^ Amanda Perelli (May 28, 2020). "Eminem joins a secretive text-message startup, sponsored content rates drop, and a new media kit library". Business Insider.
  7. ^ Tron Griffin (May 18, 2020). "11 Most annoying things YouTubers do". ChicagoNow.
  8. ^ Jay Peters (May 1, 2020). "Boosted was developing two bikes and a super-powered electric skateboard". The Verge.
  9. ^ "Google News search – Tech YouTuber". google.com.
  10. ^ "Google News search – Technical YouTuber". google.com.
  11. ^ "Google News search – Technology YouTuber". google.com.

Category:American multi-camera sitcoms[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining and rarely self-defining. A similar category was recently deleted. Fuddle (talk) 01:15, 3 June 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:Laureates of the prix du Brigadier[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Prix du Brigadier is given out by the Association de la Régie théâtrale (Theatre Board Association) as a French theater award that seems fairly obscure since much of the online coverage is Wikipedia and blogs, at least on an English search. The editors of these biography articles don't seem to think it is very defining either: of the 37 articles in the category, 5 mention the award in passing (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) and 32 omit it entirely from the text. The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 3 June 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:Joseph Jefferson Award winners[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
The Jeff Award is a local Chicago award for theatre stars. The main probably is that only 5 of the articles are about Chicagoland based people--1, 2, 3, 4, 5--for which the award might be defining. (It's hard to tell though; those articles could use some editor attention.) The rest of the awards were given to Broadway, Hollywood, West End or other actors who are already stars that came to Chicago to do one particular show which is definitely not defining. The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. (Alternatively, if kept, rename to Catgeory:Jeff Award winners to match the main article.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 3 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_3&oldid=969296297"