Category:List of medical schools in South Korea[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.
With one exception, the list is of university articles so wouldn't belong there unless there was an article on the medical department. Perhaps on the Talk page of that category? Le Deluge (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article -- As stated this is a list article in category space. Unless there is already a list this should survive as an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2016 (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 result of the discussion was:no consensus. --Tavix(talk) 17:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Or is there a difference between these two categories? The description of Category:Comedy websites even says "Categorization of articles about web sites of a predominantly humorous nature." Fixuture (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose', cleanup. comedy is not the same as humor. In fact, I vaguely remember there was splitting of categories named "Comedy and humor <something/somewhere>". - üser:Altenmann >t 06:01, 10 August 2016 (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: Correct capitalisation (e.g. as per Category:Iranian studies). Deletion could also be considered. DexDor(talk) 18:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if Kept Compare to Women's studies: even though the phrase might get capitalized as part of an academic department or journal name, the "studies" is not part of a formal noun. I tried to improve the category but, without a main article, it's hard for me to know if this is a viable sub-category of Middle Eastern studies or just a WP:SHAREDNAME issue. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without a head article we lack sourcing to show this is a defining thing. It is unclear whether the subject is the gulf itself or the region around the gulf. One of the subject institutions seems to be studying all of Iran, plus whatever exactly is encompassed in studying the gulf itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept. Nevertheless there is a lot to be said for upmerging to Category:Middle East studies, provided that we accept that Iran is part of Middle East. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2016 (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 result of the discussion was:withdrawn. --Tavix(talk) 17:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge, the content of this category is mostly about social sciences, so the scope of the two categories is substantially overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Sociology is one of the social sciences; there are others, and there will probably be an overlap between them. Unless you can positively say that all the content is applicable to the social sciences generally, this should not be merged. I lack the expertise to judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2016 (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:Works about the history of economic thought[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. --Tavix(talk) 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, this is an unnecessary category layer. (Note that there is no upmerge needed to the two other parents, since they both already contain a books category.) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge – another venture into the mysterious world of Stefanomione's category space. 'Works by work', 'Works by intuition', 'Works by sense of smell'. Oculi (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The only content is "books about ...". While in theory there might be other kinds of work, such as "articles about ...", we are in fact unlikely to get such. The alternative might be to Keep this and merge the books into this. We certainly do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2016 (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:History of economic thought, methodology, and heterodox approaches[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:upmerge, as a unnecessary category level, combining two relatively unrelated topics. (In previous discussions we have debated about whether the categories should be maintained according to JEL classification codes, but at this level of the Wikipedia category tree we do not have any other JEL-based categories anyway, so I don't think that would be a relevant argument here.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The JEL high level categories don't make intuitive sense.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2016 (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 result of the discussion was:delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Oklahoma Hall of Fame has inducted 669 people and has an exhibit with a room of the Gaylord-Pickens Museum in Oklahoma City (source). There is a catch 22 with many local awards: either you'r not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article or your famous enough that this award is not defining which is why we don't have any other general state Halls of Fame left. (We deleted the South Dakota one here.) All the inductees are already included in the Oklahoma category tree: T. Boone Pickens is already in the OK buisnesspeople cat, David Boren is in the OK Governors cat and Barry Switzer is in the U of O Football Coaches cat. If we decide to delete this category, the winners are already listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Related CFD Nomination There is an open nomination for "Category:Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame" right here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have a good list at the article on this hall of fame, and looking at it, being placed in this hall of fame is not a defining characteristic of the people so involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2016 (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:College Football Hall of Fame balloting[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 only article in this category, 2007 College Football Hall of Fame ballot, is about the Hall of Fame inductees from that year. We have a lot of annual award subcategories, like the Category:Academy Awards ceremonies, so I don't have a conceptual problem with this category but in practice only 1 article has appeared since 2007 so the subcategory doesn't aid navigation in the near term. No objection to recreating it later if the article count grows to 5 or so, although I would prefer a alernate name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is no reason for a one article category here. Even if kept, I think we would need a different name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2016 (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.
