Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 17 May 19 >

May 18[edit]

Category:West Delhi Residential Areas[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 04:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's already Category:West Delhi Places (which itself is suspicious) Fuddle (talk) 22:59, 18 May 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:Educational Coaching Hubs[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. bibliomaniac15 03:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Educational Coaching Hubs doesn't exist. Fuddle (talk) 22:57, 18 May 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:Popular Places For IAS Aspirants in Delhi[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. bibliomaniac15 03:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Popular" is subjective. Fuddle (talk) 22:56, 18 May 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:Latin music (genre)[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. bibliomaniac15 03:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the many subcats have the completely unnecessary "(genre)" disambiguator, and of course the main article is at Latin music. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. None of the other music categories in the parent contain "genre" either. Kbdank71 21:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename To match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 19 May 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:Human Food WikiLove templates[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. bibliomaniac15 03:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No reason to split these up. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Appears to be unnecessary. Kbdank71 21:32, 18 May 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:Films set in Whoville[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 There's no consensus to delete. Suggestions have been made about the target category but it was not tagged & included in the discussion so would have to be considered separately. Currently it contains many articles so merger is appropriate. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I have concerns that this is likely to be a WP:SMALLCAT and of limited interest under the best of circumstances, but also that it's not exactly a defining category of the films in question. Does it matter per se whether they're set in Whoville or elsewhere? DonIago (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Marcocapelle, being set in a fictional location isn't really defining unless it's a specific place that is also well known. Tons of films are set in made up cities/towns/neigborhoods and such but for these films being set in the world is what ties them together.★Trekker (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. No need to break these apart for only 3 films. Kbdank71 21:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main thing linking these films in a defining way is that they're all based on Dr. Seuss's books. These articles are adequately represented in Category:Films based on works by Dr. Seuss, so I think this category actually isn't needed. bibliomaniac15 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can support that view, it does not contradict my earlier comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 9 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:Urban animals[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:Urban wildlife and purge all articles that are not specifically and explicitly about "urban" animals. bibliomaniac15 04:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the articles currently in this category are species (e.g. Big brown bat, Bombus ruderatus, Elk, Mallard, Vervet monkey, Sika deer) for which being sometimes found in an urban environment is non-defining (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lede). It's also rather subjective.  As another editor has pointed out on the talk page - "To include any animal which might ever be found in an urban environment would be to include almost every species on earth, making the category pointless. Any animal can wander into a city.".
There are a few articles that are specifically about urban animals (e.g. Urban coyote and Rats in New York City). Such articles (and subcats) should be moved to Category:Animals and humans (where necessary). DexDor (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that rename would alter the meaning significantly (i.e. people would still put species articles in it) and it introduces further ambiguity (e.g. does "wildlife" include plants?). DexDor (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge (whether kept or renamed to Category:Urban fauna. This category should be limited to articles specifically about animals in towns, so that urban coyote should appear but coyote should not. A headnote will be needed to explain this narrow scope. To include any animal that might occasionally occur in towns would be too indiscriminate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Urban wildlife to match the main article and purge of inappropriate entries. I think a case could be made that some wildlife is notable for its adaptation to and thriving in urban areas (rats, pigeons, cockroaches) but for many of the others the urban scene is just one that is occasionally visited - often as a last resort - but not the mainstay of the species' population (deer, bears, coyotes). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 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:Tennis players by city or town in Belarus[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. bibliomaniac15 03:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one sub-category for this parent. The 10 categories in Category:Tennis players by city or town should also be deleted IMO. User:Namiba 13:08, 18 May 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:Art dealers from Zhejiang[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. bibliomaniac15 03:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one. Only 3 from Chine as a whole. Rathfelder (talk) 12:22, 18 May 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:Tennis players killed in World War I[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. The category has since been emptied. bibliomaniac15 22:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection of occupation and military involvement. User:Namiba 12:18, 18 May 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:Painters who died in World War I[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: listify and merge. The contents of the category can be found on the talk page for this day's discussion. bibliomaniac15 03:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection. User:Namiba 12:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but the upmerge should be done manually (rather than by bot) ... because many of the articles will already be in subcats of the two target categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then merge per nom, with BHG's caveat. Grutness...wha? 03:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge painters weren't singled out for killing in WWI, so non-defining intersection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then merge -- This is an interesting intersection and should not be deleted out of hand. We probably also need a Category:Lists of people killed in World War I by occupation. In other cases, death in WWI is a defining characteristic, because it explains why their career was short. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • People who died in World War I are not the same as people killed in World War I. I think we should avoid categorising people by how, when, or where, they die unless it really is central to their notability. Rathfelder (talk) 12:23, 22 May 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:Berserk (manga)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 27#Category:Berserk (manga)

Victorian-era ships[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. bibliomaniac15 03:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to CFD May 9. The Submarines category includes American vessels, which should not be categorised as "Victorian"; that term was only kept for UK, Australia & Canada, see the preceding discussion at CFD Feb 28.
Note: Category:19th-century ships already exists, and I have made Category:Victorian-era ships a sub-cat of it. I have not proposed renaming of Category:Victorian-era naval ships to C19 as it is part of Category:Naval ships by period and Category:Victorian-era military equipment.
There may be scope for Category:19th-century merchant ships and Category:19th-century passenger ships to be useful parents of Category:Victorian-era merchant ships and Category:Victorian-era passenger ships – please discuss here.
Likewise, would it be useful to have "19th-century destroyers" etc? – Fayenatic London 09:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without diving too much into this matter, non-British ships should not be under a "Victorian-era" category, which is what WP:GLOBAL talks about. I even doubt there is a reason to keep this category for British ships as it makes the category structure INCONSISTENT, with some using centuries and other using descriptive terms. --Gonnym (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but just as an interim solution. Much more work needs to be done afterwards, per Gonnym. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- It amounts to the same thing (unless we need to purge 1901 submarines). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support changing outdated term. desmay (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I also agree with @Gonnym:. The descriptor "Victorian" can have no relevance to those producing ships that were not ruled by that monarch. It is excessive UK-centrism and should be renamed to something like Category:19th-century naval ships of the British Empire or just leave it as a by century/by state conjunction. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. PPEMES (talk) 21:38, 26 May 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:Israeli people by occupation and century[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. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure which one is the right target. Only that we need to merge a duplicate category. Please list your preferred target! gidonb (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the content is clearly different and both categories are part of an established series by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle. SportingFlyer T·C 07:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These as are not duplicates, and each is part of a wider series. It would be helpful if the nominator @gidonb would spent a few moments looking at the two categories, to see the difference ... and then withdraw this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 18 May 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:Documentary film[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. bibliomaniac15 03:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is the purpose of separating documentary film and films in the category system? This doesn't seem to be a common thing, nor can I see any logic for this. Those categories should be merged. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, "documentary films" is a set category of individual film titles while "documentary film" contains everything else related to the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose two separate entities here - the sub categorises films, the primary categoriese the over-arching topic. SportingFlyer T·C 07:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lots of virtue to keeping the individual films seperate from the media form. gidonb (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There might be some value in renaming the singular category somehow ("Documentary cinema"?) to make the distinction clearer, but there is a clear distinction between the concept of documentary film as a domain and specific individual films as a list. For example, the domain also includes Category:Documentary filmmakers and Category:Documentary film festivals and Category:Documentary film magazines and Category:Documentary film organizations, among several other categories that are of the domain but are not themselves films. It's true that not every film genre can support a clear distinction there (we don't have a "comedy filmmakers" category, nor are there many significant film festivals or organizations that centre exclusively on comedy film to the exclusion of drama), but documentary film is one of the ones that can — and as for whether it's completely unprecedented, just look at the distinction between Category:Film (the fundamental concept of cinema) and Category:Films (the subcategory for specific individual examples of it.) Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 22 May 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:Sports teams based in Kuwait[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. The proposal is a rename but in practice it's a merge and delete. bibliomaniac15 03:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Can a bot move the articles? Fuddle (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to make consistent with other naming conventions. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per wide convention. gidonb (talk) 02:13, 19 May 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:Delhi Places[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. bibliomaniac15 04:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Covered by Category:District subdivisions of Delhi. Fuddle (talk) 03:55, 18 May 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:Indian Institute of Technology (BHU) Varanasi alumni[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. bibliomaniac15 03:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no cat for the university itself. Fuddle (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Part of an established series of categories for alumni. No objection to creating the target category if there are at least 5 items to populate it. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wouldn't expect alumni to appear in the university category unless they're teaching there. Kbdank71 21:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yes, it is awkward that the parent is missing but the CfDd cat is fine. Just create the parent and populate it. gidonb (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What if there aren't any articles for the parent cat? I ask to establish precedent. Fuddle (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Formally you should not create it at less than five items. The main article, Indian Institute of Technology (BHU) Varanasi, is definitely there. Next to the alumni category, a faculty subcategory is a usually low-hanging fruit. See what else you can find! gidonb (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- We frequently have alumni categories where there is no category for a school. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 19 May 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:Year of birth missing (living people)[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 per WP:SNOW: consensus is clear. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category unintentionally encourages unreferenced birth dates to be added and as it has 137,000 entries its not being seriously addressed. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with the nomination rationale, and would instead propose that the number of possible solutions to the problem be expanded. As far as I am aware, we have no scheme of categorization for estimated birth dates except to put the people in decades or centuries categories. We could subdivide this category for people for whom it is certain what range of decades they were born in, but the year remains unknown (e.g., something like Category:Year of birth missing (living people born between 1930 and 1950). BD2412 T 01:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. The very fact that contributors have appended this category 137,000 times confirms that it is not being ignored and that the expected presence of a subject's birth year (or, alternatively, the year's absence) is considered an important aspect of his or her article's lead sentence. Moreover, this category is an analogous companion to Category:Date of birth missing (living people) (although the two categories are mutually exclusive) and Category:Place of birth missing (living people), as well as Category:Year of birth missing and Category:Year of birth unknown.— Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that it is hard to subdivide a category, doesn't make it excessive. Guessing the years isn't a good idea. Dividing by country may work but irrelevant to my keep. gidonb (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's huge, but I don't think it encourages anything, and it's a good maintenance cat. Other solutions exist here. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an important maintenance category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It encourages people to find and add the year of birth. Kbdank71 21:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful for maintenance, and it looks like it's waiting for a potential WikiProject to come along. Grutness...wha? 03:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a maintenance category, and it is hidden from non-logged in users too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forecast WP:SNOW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously but it does beg the question how are there 137,000 living people supposedly notable enough to merit a biography here, where even the basic biographical information isn't known? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also raises the question how important (i.e. how defining) the year of birth is for any person. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously keep - It serves to highlight missing data, but we should discourage its use where the date is unknown and unknowable, as occurs in more remote history. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 19 May 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:Women's Basketball 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. bibliomaniac15 03:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Women's Basketball Hall of Fame was founded in 1999 in Knoxville, Tennessee. The award generally wasn't mentioned at all in the articles in this category until, on Friday Feb 14 and Monday Feb 17, when a single purpose IP editor rapidly added the award to all the intros of the articles (see here). Despite that spurt of enthusiasm in Wikipedia, external sources don't seem to view the award as generally defining even when providing lengthy background on, for instance, the 2008 inductees: Suzie McConnell-Serio's official USA Basketball bio mentions it in passing, as does Debbie Ryan's former employer on the official UVA page, and Michele Timms's hometown newspaper didn't even mention it. The contents of the category are already listified here within the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD
Unless we propose to delete all Hall of Fame categories, including Category:Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame inductees, it is unclear what is non-defining about being inducted into a hall of fame of a sport. This isn't a cultural or regional Hall of Fame. It is a nationally organized and recognized one.--User:Namiba 14:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gradually proposing to delete most, including a national one for Scotland, below. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:02, 24 May 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:Scottish 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Scottish Sports Hall of Fame was founded in 2002 and recognizes Scottish athletes for their performance much earlier in their lives. The articles are already well grouped under their respective sports: Tommy Armour under multiple golfing categories, Alister Allan under multiple Olympic cats, Louise Aitken-Walker under multiple auto racing cats, and Phil Macpherson under multiple rugby union cats. In the articles, this award is either mentioned in passing or not at all so it doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already listified here within the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 18 May 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_May_18&oldid=1073192672"