Category:Organizations that support same-sex marriage[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: Seems to be a textbook example of WP:OPINIONCAT and therefore to be discouraged. Basically a list of every centrist / centre-left party in the world and overall not very useful or informative. Elshad (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We could have this for every issue, even regarding the proposed new zoo downtown. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a defining characteristic of all, or even most of the contents — from what I can tell, it consists primarily of political parties that have opinions on a lot of issues. But it would lead to extreme category bloat if we categorized political parties by their positions on just every political or social debate that exists (organizations that support/oppose immigration, organizations that support/oppose carbon taxes, organizations that support/oppose electoral reform, etc.), and there's no real reason why their positions on SSM should be of special category-worthy importance over and above their positions on everything else. Marcocapelle is right that the sibling for organizations that oppose SSM should probably also be deleted, so feel free to nominate it — but its failure to already have been nominated is not in and of itself a reason to retain this one. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:OPINIONCAT. If it were organisations that single-pupose campaigns specifically for SSM (and conversely against), it would be different. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Procedural Comment delete both. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2021 (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.
Oppose Several non-fiction examples mentioned above. Dimadick (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2021 (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: The number of articles about lighthouses in Florida does not support this structure of sub-categories. There are only three lighthouses in Duval County, two in Miami-Dade County, and 18 in Monroe County. There are no prospects of new lighthouses being built in Florida. Merging those 23 articles into the Lighthouses of Florida category will increase that category to just 35 articles. If the first three categories are merged into Lighthouses of Florida, then the Lighthouses in Florida by county category will be empty and eligible for deletion. - Donald Albury 18:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support except Monroe County. 18 is more than enough articles to justify a subcategory. The other categories should also be merged into the appropriate buildings and structures by X county, Florida.--User:Namiba 21:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Namiba's alternative, i.e. dual merge and keep Monroe County. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support except Monroe County per Namiba. --Just N. (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. With 18 articles in Monroe County, merging that one impedes navigation. If we keep that, then we might as well keep the other two. And if any merges happen, they should be dual merges. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 23 April 2021 (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:Guinean expatriate basketball people in the United States[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.
Also note that if this cat was merged, it should be a triple merge: the nom omitted Category:Expatriate basketball people in the United States from the list of targets. The fact that a triple merge would be required emphasises why this is a bad idea: it would cause category clutter on the articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
14 of those 66 categories have fewer than 5 articles, which means that they would likely be deleted as well if nominated. Categories are meant to aide navigation and having multiple layers of categories with a couple of articles does not do so.--User:Namiba 15:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Namiba: if you wish to nominate the whole set of categories, then do so. But per WP:SMALLCAT, there is no basis for singling out one such category, and even you nominated all 14 cats with less than 5 articles that group of 21% of the set does not override the "established series" principle. Most established series of categories have a tail of small cats. If you dissent from he long-established guideline SMALLCAT, feel free to open an RFC. It is disappointing to see a nomination based both on multiple misunderstandings of a short and simple guideline and on a failure to identify the merge targets ... so I hope that the nom will withdraw it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will not withdraw the nomination and I disagree with your interpretation of SMALLCAT.--User:Namiba 10:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Namiba, WP:SMALLCAT says: Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme (emphasis added by me).
You agree that 52 of the 66 categories are big enough to keep, so the only issue of interpretation is whether that set of 52 amounts to a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". In fact, since you nominate only one of the 66 categories, the real question is whether a set of 65 amounts to a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Do you really claim that 65 is not big enough to qualify? Really? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BHG's remarks are all pertinent. Oculi (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2021 (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.
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2021 (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: Per WP:OCEPON; subject only has a couple articles directly related to them. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fuentes is a minor far-right political figure and said category is unlikely to grow significantly moving forward.--User:Namiba 13:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorisation. Elshad (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete relative nobody in the alt-right movement, unlikely to be a category that grows beyond 3. ValarianB (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per now. --Just N. (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2021 (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: The Turner Cup was a minor league ice hockey award given to teams. As such, this category for individual players is both trivial and non-defining. Similar categories, such as for Super Bowl, Grey Cup, the World Series, and other team championships, have been deleted in the recent past. User:Namiba 13:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles seem focused on NHL major league careers, and mention earlier playing for smaller teams and this award just in passing in the "Playing career" section. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2021 (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.
Support Per nom. Lines up to what is now the current category naming scheme.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The games feature mecha, they are not themselves mecha. Dimadick (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2021 (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.
Support Per nom. Lines up to what is now the current category naming scheme.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Confusing name. Dimadick (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The Society of Automotive Engineers branched out a little by issuing the Wright Brothers Medal, an American award for research into aerospace engineering and other improvements to aircraft. The biography articles are absolutely defined by their aerospace involvement but they're already well categorized, usually under Category:American aerospace engineers. Many of these articles are just one paragraph long and hard to assess but the longer ones don't treat the award as defining and tend to mention the it in passing like with Clinton H. Havill, Myron Tribus, and Theodore Paul Wright, no relation. (There are some exceptions that mention it the lede but WP:OCAWARD is looking for defining-ness with a "large majority" of notable recipients.) The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2021 (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:Recipients of the Order of Aeronautical Merit (Brazil)[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.
When high military officials from other countries meet with or have training exercises with the Brazilian air force, the Order of Aeronautical Merit (Brazil) is given out as a souvenir. Swedish Air Force Micael Bydén, Soviet Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, and American General Dwight D. Eisenhower are not remotely defined by this award. (The only Brazilian in this category is President Lula who has no aeronatics background.) All the category contents are now listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors and those nominations are listed right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2021 (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.
