Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 6 January 8 >

January 7[edit]

Category:Austrian Nazis who committed suicide[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, there is no tree of Category:Nazis who committed suicide by nationality, this is a stand-alone category. All articles are already in either Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Austria or Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete defining the intersection of method and death, nationality and political affiliation all in one category leads to way more potential categries, and way more possible categories to put people in, than is at all useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there was no distinction between Austria and Germany during their period of notoriety. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 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:Hereditary Princesses of Lucca[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 both to Category:Nobility from the Republic of Lucca. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only 2 Hereditary Princesses as far as I can see, but there are some dukes, and they dont really need a separate category. Rathfelder (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oversaw that Category:Dukes of Lucca already exists. In that case I support RD's proposal below to merge the two categories together. I have added the dukes category to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:29, 8 January 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:Painters from Lucca[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Slightly wider scope. Some of these people are also sculptors, engravers etc. Rathfelder (talk) 21:43, 7 January 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.

LGBT academics[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 to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS. For some reason Category:Gay academics is restricted to people who identify as men—but the term "gay" can be used to refer to nonbinary folks, women, and men. Category:LGBT academics likewise WP:INDISCRIMINATEly picks out nonbinary folks and women, despite this not being flagged in the category title. In any event, both should be deleted per OCEGRS. Category:LGBT studies academics is a legitimate category, but these are not. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That only applies to a small amount of articles, not to the vast majority in these categories. It would be better to create an article about the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying, Marcocapelle, but I would say that the category, and all those nominated for deletion, have merit. This isn't one of those Wikipedia categories that has a small number of entries. Removing this category, and all those nominated for deletion, would greatly impugn the ability to use Wikipedia in a positive way.Historyday01 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — well populated — I've fixed the order in the nomination. LGBT have a long history of being treated differently everywhere, not just academics. Nevertheless, among the first places they were outed and accepted were academics. Rather famously here at University of Michigan. That said, there seem some number of miscategorizations, and of those who were not "out" at the time. Therefore, "or who have been reliably identified" needs to be removed from the category definitions. If it violates WP:EGRS, the category must be removed immediately from the article!
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the arguments of Rab V, Oculi, and William Allen Simpson here, and total disagreement with Marcocapelle. The category is of merit and is more than "trivial intersections." People in the LGBTQ community are not and never will be trivial. As of what the OP says, I would say that the category "gay academics" should apply only to gay men, "bisexual academics" to bisexual men and women, "intersex academics" to intersex people, "lesbian academics" to lesbian women, and "transgender academics" to trans men and women. However, I would say that if the OP wishes to create a category titled something like "Category:Non-binary academics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)", then they should do that, instead of trying to shoehorn them into another category. NONE of these categories should be deleted. Whether categories should be removed from specific pages, that should be done on a page-by-page basis. Historyday01 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that nobody argues that people in the LGBTQ community are trivial. The question at stake is what makes LGBTQ academics so special within the LGBTQ community? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Marcocapelle. I would say that the category is still a valid one per the previous arguments made. If these categories were removed, how would anyone find LGBTQ academics on here? The category serves as a way to bring all those people together. If you have another way they should be organized, like a list or something, I'd like to hear it. I also do not understand how "LGBT studies academics" is a valid category, as the OP states, but that "LGBT academics" and the others listed by the OP are not. It doesn't make a lick of sense to me. I mean, for gosh sakes, there are sites for LGBTQ academics to talk about issues and meet, while others have noted such academics in Brazil, Canada the UK, and some have even said there are a large number of gay and lesbian people in academia itself. Also see articles about LGBTQ scientists in academia and discrimination they face, to name a few resources. I wouldn't say that academics are "special" within the LGBTQ community (whatever that means), but rather that they are notable enough to have a category (and various sub-categories) on the subject. Historyday01 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01: The reason I said Category:LGBT studies academics was valid and these aren't is that LGBT studies is a WP:DEFINING feature of the members of the cat and (as I argue) being LGBT is not a defining feature of the academics in Category:LGBT academics. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why both categories can't exist at the same time. Not everyone who is a LGBT studies academic is necessarily LGBTQ themselves, although they are more likely to be. People who are LGBTQ are not just defined by their sexual orientation, but it is a part of who they are as people. And, AleatoryPonderings, if you want to go through and remove certain individuals from the categories, you can do so on a page-by-page basis, but it isn't right to delete the whole category and those underneath it. As I said before, it would greatly impugn the ability to use Wikipedia in a productive manner. If you have another proposal for how these people should be listed, then I'd be glad to hear it, but I don't think you have offered one at this point. Historyday01 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories (especially categories used on BLPs) must comply with WP policy to remain on WP. My arguments are meant to show that Category:LGBT studies academics complies with policy and Category:LGBT academics does not. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you are trying to prove that, you aren't doing a good job of it. Again, if you want to go through the pages listed in the category and assess whether certain pages fall into that category, that should be done on a page-by-page basis. Historyday01 (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that people Category:LGBT studies academics study LGBT studies as an academic, therefore it is not a trivial intersection, by definition. However, for people in Category:LGBT academics, their LGBT identity is generally unrelated to their being an academic. For example (I'm just going randomly by alphabet):
- Joseph Friedrich Abert, there is nothing in the article that suggests he was arrested in the Nazi period because he was an academic.
- Jane Adams, the next one, there is nothing in the article that suggests her college courses at the University of Chicago had anything to do with LGBT issues.
- David Adger is a member of 500 Queer Scientists but we do not categorize people by plain membership of an organization (and he has been listified in that article).
And so on. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying, but I would not say that it is a "trivial intersection," but is an important part of who they are as individuals. As I said before, those in the category, should, for sure, be evaluated, on a page-by-page basis, but deleting it altogether seems like a complete overreach and overkill. Historyday01 (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not as familiar with the other examples but the Jane Addams article talks about how her lovers helped run Hull House, a place where she taught and developed her most important ideas. Rab V (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Rab V, I'm not familiar with those examples either, but I did not know that about Jane Addams before, although I've heard of the Hull House in the past. Here's the part from that article:

Generally, Addams was close to a wide set of other women and was very good at eliciting their involvement from different classes in Hull House's programs. Nevertheless, throughout her life Addams did have romantic relationships with a few of these women, including Mary Rozet Smith and Ellen Starr. Her relationships offered her the time and energy to pursue her social work while being supported emotionally and romantically. From her exclusively romantic relationships with women, she would most likely be described as a lesbian in contemporary terms, similar to many leading figures in the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom of the time. Her first romantic partner was Ellen Starr, with whom she founded Hull House, and whom she met when both were students at Rockford Female Seminary. In 1889, the two had visited Toynbee Hall together, and started their settlement house project, purchasing a house in Chicago. Her second romantic partner was Mary Rozet Smith, who was wealthy and supported Addams's work at Hull House, and with whom she shared a house. Historian Lilian Faderman wrote that Jane was in love and she addressed Mary as "My Ever Dear", "Darling" and "Dearest One", and concluded that they shared the intimacy of a married couple. They remained together until 1934, when Mary died of pneumonia, after forty years together.

That seems like a strong case for keeping in this category, without a doubt. It sounds like she was pretty open as a lesbian too, which is pretty amazing I'd say, since many more people were closeted. The Addams article says she did lectures and taught college courses at the University of Chicago and was only loosely affiliated with the university, so she would have "no university controls over her political activism." As she was a lesbian, and an academic, she would still fall under this category. As for Joseph Friedrich Abert, the page says he was openly gay, as he lived with Albrecht Becker and that both, during the Nazi era "were arrested for violating Section 175, the legal ban on homosexuality and imprisoned." The fact he was an academic undoubtedly didn't change anything. He was a gay man and an academic, again meaning that it makes sense to have him in this category. In terms of David Adger, he is gay and married to another man named Anson W. Mackay, so I could see him falling under this category too. But again, each of these people should be discussed on a page-by-page basis, on their respective talk pages, rather than having a discussion on here. Historyday01 (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the reasons listed by Rab V. Dimadick (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:OCEGRS, there is no gay physics or lesbian mathematics. This isn't removing those who are academics of LGBT topics, just the trivial intersections of any academic with sexual orientation. The extent of its triviality is that sexual orientation isn't even mentioned in the first paragraph. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carlos, we agree about most things. Agree that they shouldn't be included unless they were notable for that issue. (For example, Lynn Conway here at UM). But this category isn't about "gay physics" or "lesbian mathematics". These are folks who have historically been discriminated against due to sexual orientation, who also are/were academics. I'm biased, as I've been aware of this strongly affiliated community since college in the '70s. A computer science housemate was on the Gay and Lesbian Council. I've volunteered for the first gay candidate for City Council (we won), and the first lesbian Circuit Judge (we won). Lynn's treasurer was gay, her Chief of Staff was lesbian, her Deputy Chief of Staff was lesbian, et alia. We live in a very diverse community, and a transgender woman lives across the street. All of them are/were academics.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson is right. It makes sense to have this category and again, the use of the category should be decided on a page-by-page basis, following what you are saying, that they have to be notable, like Jane Addams. Again, despite what Carlos says, I would never say that LGBT academics are a "trivial intersection," in fact they are very vital and there should be more of them. Historyday01 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete their academic work has no intrinsic or defining overlap with their LGBTness. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Are you saying their academic work isn't important? Historyday01 (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Their academic work might be important. Equally their LGBTness might be important. What is not important or at all relataed is the intersection of the two. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not important? What the heck! It sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me, which is despicable. Historyday01 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dial down the hysteria / self righteousness a tad. It's entirely unnecessary. The intersection is unimportant. Is there anything in the individual articles that says that a person's academic work is intrinsically linked to their LGBTness? Is is possible that a gay academic might produce good work without the added element of his gayness? Does that article say that a certain amount of gayness is inherently necessary for certain academic work? Perhaps if the person was Dean of LGBT Studies at some university, that might be possible. Are you aware of any such deans in the category? Which reminds me of an amusing Spoonerism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel Lodged, I'm not being "hysterical" (a word which is clearly sexist if you look into the origins of it, especially when used against women) or self-righteous. The fact is that this intersection is IMPORTANT. There are no ifs, ands, and buts about it. So, someone who was a gay academic who was a adjunct professor would not count in your mind? Yikes. Not everyone wants to become a dean. Besides, someone who is a LGBT academic may not want to specifically study LGBT studies, but rather they might be a gay academic in anthropology, history, or political science, and perhaps talk about the importance of gender there, or something. Your standards make no sense to me and it seems you don't understand the importance of the category. It is deeply unfortunate. --Historyday01 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 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:Murdered actors[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not commonly and consistently expected as a professional hazard or qualification. There may have been many years between the occupation and the death, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children.
See also: related rationale about suicides by occupation:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are some high profile exception with deranged fans or the like, but generally this is a coincidence so the intersection is not defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not a trivial intersection. There is a clear link between their profession and their murder, their relatively high profile. Dimadick (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect a statistical relationship between being notable and being murdered, but that is not unique to actors. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 10 January 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:Venetian 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Venetian writers by century. This is an unnecessary intermediate category, unless someone plans to establish more occupation and century categories for Venice. Rathfelder (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Didn't that republic die a while ago? Eddaido (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand your comment. The "Venetian people" categories are for people from the Republic of Venice. People after 1797 are in "Scientists from Venice" and similar categories. Rathfelder (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It did, but Wikipedia has articles and categories about republics and people who died a long time ago. Place Clichy (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The category content is clearly about the former Republic of Venice. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This looks like the intent here anyway. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The convention, as I understand it, is that "Fooish people" categories are for country/nationality level. "Bonesetters from Foo" are for lower levels like cities and regions. It's a bit confusing in a place like Venice which was a country but is no longer. Rathfelder (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not for all categories, and not when the Fooish demonym is ambiguous, as is the case e.g. for Georgian, Dominican or Venetian. Place Clichy (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Removes redundancy and clarifies the scope. Association with the Republic of Venice is more defining than association with the city. Place Clichy (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom -- It would be quite wrong to merge to Italy, which was only a geographic (not political) concept until mid-19th century. This should cover the whole of the republic, not just the city. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Unnecessary intermediate category, since it contains only a single subcategory. Dimadick (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this is only a notable grouping when we have an actual polity that they people were connected with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 11 January 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:Venetian sculptors[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:Republic of Venice sculptors; removing modern ones and placing them in appropriate categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some of these articles are about Republic of Venice people, and some later, (and some, of course, in both) but there arent enough to warrant dividing into 2 categories. Rathfelder (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However that was bad luck. The full count is 14 from the former Republic of Venice and only 6 modern sculptors. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is the better execution of what I proposed before. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 18 January 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:International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union leaders[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The union's name did not have any apostrophes in it, as can he seen in their official logo here, or in the archives of The New York Times, such as here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The objection comes from the editor who has been adding apostrophes with no consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake. The editor who has been adding inappropriate apostrophes to the name is Alistair1978, not Shushugah, but you've also mistaken what Shushugah was commenting on, which was not the title of the article, but Alistair1978's activities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I must have misread the edit history: I thought the main article was stable with an apostrophe from 2005-2021 until you boldly removed it yesterday. No matter which way it went though, article disagreements are best resolved on article talk pages. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the apostrophes would normally be there in grammatical English, it is an easy mistake to make to include them in the name of the union, but names are what people select them to be, and the fact of the matter is that the ILGWU did not have, and never had, any apostrophes in its name. That our article had an inaccurate name for 16 years is regrettable, but mistakes do happen, and when they are discovered, they should be corrected, not caught up in a bureaucratic mire. There is, in point of fact, no "controversy". The name of the article has been corrected, and no one has complained about that, certainly not Shushugah, who made his comment before I moved the article (check the timestamps). Now, the category should be updated to match the corrected name in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way there needs to be one XfD conversation and I'm confused why you want to do it in the wrong namespace. @Alistair1978: who has since contributed to the talk page conversation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally couldn't care less either way, but with hundreds of edits, and potentially an edit war, I want to affirm that this should be resolved on the Talk page first. For what it's worth, almost all of the recent logos don't have apostrophes, some do, but I noticed in this letter head does include it. Would making a redirect of a category be reasonable, given depending on the source, people may search for either spelling variation of the category? ~ Shushugah (talk) 15:04, 9 January 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:Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: English name, article name was moved a few months back. JTtheOG (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support under the assumption that there is consensus about the article rename (Federico Villarreal National University). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for Now Since the article was boldly moved it can be boldly moved again, but this seems non-controversial and the categories should try to keep up to simplify navigation for readers. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:01, 7 January 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 Honorary Order of the Palm[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
Suriname became independent from The Netherlands in 1975 and the Honorary Order of the Palm was created as a post-independence award. And yet, without exception, every person in this category is a politician from The Netherlands. For the vast majority of these biography articles, there is no mention of Suriname beyond this award, so whatever it was awarded for doesn't seem defining. A few of these politicians do have some tie to Suriname: Barryl Biekman is ethnically Surinamese and we have a few who held the title of "Minister for Suriname and Netherlands Antilles Affairs" but, even amongst this subgroup, the award gets a passing reference at most. There is already a list here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 7 January 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 the Two Rivers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders visit Iraq, or vice versa, the Order of the Two Rivers is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. King George VI, Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Chairman Henryk Jabłoński are not remotely defined by this award. There are no Iraqi people in the category. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
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/2021_January_7&oldid=1002576458"