Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 5 May 7 >

May 6[edit]

Category:Paco Paco songs[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; could be re-created if Paco Paco is created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Artist is a redlink. Only one category. No assistance to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the header of Category:Songs by artist says "Please note that all song articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many songs the artist has recorded." It does not explicitly mention whether that also applies for redlinked artists. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Thanks for your comment, my nomination is not based on whether there is an article for the band, but whether the category is any use for navigation. If there had been two members of any description I would not have nominated, if somebody wants to create an article for the artist, I am fine with that too, but click on a category to find it is a dead end does seem to be against the spirit of categories. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:59, 19 May 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:Rede Globo affiliates[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 as below. – Fayenatic London 07:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per pending main article move Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:31, 6 May 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:Rede Globo[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 per renamed article. – Fayenatic London 07:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per pending main article move Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, the article should be renamed first. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose per Marco. --Just N. (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there is now an RM ongoing. If that leads to a rename, this category and the one above can be speedily renamed too. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 13 May 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:Esuvii[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another category (cf. 20 March 2020, 6 December 2020) which mixes up a supposed Roman family/gens with an obscure tribe of Gauls. It may or may not be a coincidence that the two Romans listed here, both called Esuvius Tetricus, were also from Gaul (were they named after the Gallic tribe?), but, in any case, the Romans and the Gauls would have to be split into two separate categories. And there's not enough of either to form one which would not fall under WP:SMALLCAT. Avilich (talk) 13:37, 6 May 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:People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets councillors[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets was a short-lived party and has now dissolved. It had 6 councillors during its existence, but only 1 of these has ever been notable and in possession of an article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:30, 6 May 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:Leaders of People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets was a short-lived party that only had one leader in its existence and has now dissolved, so there's no point in having a category. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 6 May 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:Honorary Degree Recipients of Fu Jen Catholic University[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) 02:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nondefining award. Not mentioned in three bios checked at random. Honorary degrees don't seem to be defining, hardly ever. (t · c) buidhe 07:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We've consistently deleted honorary degrees from other countries; see here, here, and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In an American context, honorary degrees are throw-away pieces of paper given in exchange for lowering the cost of commencement speakers to lower the price of their speaking fees. It's hard t say what this award is for since the articles generally don't mention it which clearly fails WP:OCAWARD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not categorize people by honorary degrees.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 10 May 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:Summiters of Mount Kinabalu[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING: Mount Kinabalu states you don't even need mountaineering equipment to reach the summit. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 6 May 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:Geisler family(Philippines)[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. – Fayenatic London 08:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Terrible disambiguation —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed to renaming--Jondel (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose A global Cat: Geisler family is not at all empirically meaningful. Geisler is not a very rare family name in Germany/Austria or even emigrants. Mishmash probable! But nevertheless it should be renamed to Category:Geisler family (Philippines) to deliver correct grammar. --Just N. (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated as ambiguous (see Geisler) and support alt rename per Just N. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 3 people do not categorize a large enough family to be worth having a category for. Family categories have too often sprung up without any good sourcing to justify having them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 10 May 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:Enrile family(Philippines)[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. – Fayenatic London 08:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Terrible disambiguation —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed to renaming--Jondel (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Apart from not knowing global frequency of Spanish surname Enrile just the same objections as with Geisler above. The wrong grammar (missing space) should be corrected. --Just N. (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack an article on Enrile family. Without a well sourced article showing that sources treat these people as a unit we should not have a category for them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because of the combination of a borderline SMALLCAT and lack of a main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 10 May 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:Cimbalomists by nationality and 1 subcategory[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 14#Category:Cimbalomists by nationality and 1 subcategory

Category:Rogers TV[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 16#Category:Rogers TV

Category:Rogers TV original programming[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 16#Category:Rogers TV original programming

Category:Order of Sikatuna[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) 02:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the "national order of diplomatic merit of the Republic of the Philippines... [awarded to] diplomats, officials and nationals of foreign states"—i.e. it's mostly a diplomatic souvenir. Although it's also awarded to Filipino diplomats, none of the articles I checked more than mentioned the award. (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The foreign officials who meet with Filipino delegations and receive this as a diplomatic souvenir fails WP:PERFCAT. The domestic recipients, which has some room for growth, are defined by being Filipino diplomats which is why we already have Category:Filipino diplomats. Both groups fail WP:OCAWARD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be a state honour frequently awarded to Filipino citizens for services to the Philippines. Clerarly defining to them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not an honor that is so major that it would be mentioned in any short bio blurd on the person. That is the super limited rule under which we allow such categories. It is not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 10 May 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:Honorary Commanders of the Order of the Defender of the Realm[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) 02:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The honorary version of this award is a Malaysian diplomatic souvenir. Nominating separately from the substantive award as while I don't expect it is defining either, it should be easier to get consensus for this deletion. (t · c) buidhe 03:11, 6 May 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.

Members of COVID-19 advisory groups[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. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename All if Kept Proposed names describe the actual category contents. I'm wondering if these temporary committees are defining or amount to political/medical WP:PERFCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A reasonable thing to ask. I don't think anyone became notable for being a member of these, and further it may not be defining for them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, it is relevant right now because Covid is a "thing", but in a few years time it may become too minor to even mention in a biography. Sort of PERFCAT too. If kept, rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Agree that this is kind of PERFCAT and unlikely to be defining in the long run. (t · c) buidhe 11:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We are an encyclopedia and provide useful services to people of today by navigatonal categories. If in future years those national commetees are forgettable then we should delete them at hat moment but not now. I'd suppose users work with that as long they are still in office. --Just N. (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    • Are you opposing deletion or opposing renaming? The nomination is to rename; other users have suggested deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear what is being asked here. I would however suggest that all categories should specify country (unless that are emanations of WHO or some other international body. I see no objection to having categories for government advisory bodies and one parent (or a tree of them). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the nominations, renames are being proposed, with some other editors suggesting deletion. How is this unclear? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all It is not worth categorizing people by various short term task forces they served on. In the broad scheme of things this is just not notable enough to categorize biographical articles by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:White House Coronavirus Task Force[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains only members of the task force (and White House Coronavirus Task Force). The members are also listed in White House Coronavirus Task Force so a category may be unnecessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine I would favor a single solution for these, whether I agree with that outcome or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being on this task force is not a long term defining characteristic of these people if we take a truly historic view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Independent SAGE[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains only members of the group (and Independent SAGE). The members are also listed in Independent SAGE so a category may be unnecessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine I would favor a single solution for these, whether I agree with that outcome or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless these groups last a long time and so have lots of members I think the lists in the articles should be sufficient. Rathfelder (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This relates to a self-appointed group who came together to oppose (or criticise) what the government SAGE committee was doing. I have not herd them mentioned on the news for many months. I would therefore suggest that this is a NN committee, even if it still exists (does it?). I am not objecting to the existence of an article, but the category comes close to being a PERFCAT. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:COVID-19 Immunity Task Force[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains only members of the task force (and COVID-19 Immunity Task Force). The members are also listed in COVID-19 Immunity Task Force so a category may be unnecessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine I would favor a single solution for these, whether I agree with that outcome or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:COVID-19 Advisory Board[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains only members of the board (and COVID-19 Advisory Board.) The members are also listed in COVID-19 Advisory Board, so the category may be unnecessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine I would favor a single solution for these, whether I agree with that outcome or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:25, 6 May 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 Abdulaziz al Saud[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) 02:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nondefining Saudi award. On both arwiki and enwiki, awarded primarily to Al Saud family and foreign dignitaries. These people are notable for their position, not receiving this award. (t · c) buidhe 03:06, 6 May 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:Honorary Degree Recipients of the University of London[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) 02:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Judging from Category:Honorary degrees, there seems to be consensus for keeping honorary degrees in lists rather than categories. I see no indication that ULondon honorary degrees are defining, certainly not for Amartya Sen, Joseph Lister, or Margrethe II of Denmark. (t · c) buidhe 02:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We've consistently deleted honorary degrees from other countries; see here, here, and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not clear why this award is given in the articles which suggests it's a non-defining award for people with only a passing connection to the school. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decorations which only go to people who are already famous are not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not define people by honorary degrees.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 10 May 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 Star of Jordan[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) 02:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mostly awarded to foreign dignitaries, to members of the Jordanian royal family, and to high-ranking Jordanian politicians (such as the prime minister). Either way, recipients are notable for their position not for receiving this award. I checked arwiki and it tells the same story. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly fails WP:OCAWARD for the foreign recipients who generally received it as a diplomatic souvenir. For the domestic recipients, they are largely Jordanian royalty which is defining but that's why we already have Category:Jordanian royalty. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be a state honour frequently awarded to Jordanian citizens for services to Jordan. Clerarly defining to them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as applied has clearly created huge amounts of category clutter. This award is not defining to anyone in a way that no having the category would harm navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 10 May 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:Members of the Boston 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT
Despite its name, The Boston Club is a private gentlemen's club in New Orleans, Louisiana. It does carry some old money prestige but it tends to admit prominent people who are not defined by it. Of the 10 articles in this category, 7 don't mention this at all and 3 mention it in passing (1, 2, 3) but each of those were officers or founders not just members. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 6 May 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:Former member states of the European Union[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
The only article in this category is the United Kingdom and there is no growth potential. We have a whole category tree for Category:Withdrawal from the European Union with a Category:Brexit subcategory to hold articles for readers interested in this topic. Going from the UK article to a category with no other articles does not aid navigation for readers. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SMALLCAT (t · c) buidhe 02:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per above. Can be recreated in the future if a substantial amount of countries leave the E.U., but for now that looks unlikely. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SMALLCAT indeed. But I have some doubts if there really is no growth potential at all. --Just N. (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant there are no other Wikipedia articles that could be added right now; if the situation changes on the ground we can of course re-evaluate this category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 10 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_6&oldid=1028480634"