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.
Procedural comment@
Peacock: the subcategories also need to be tagged with {{subst:cfm|ProposedName|SectionName}} ... i.e. {{subst:cfm|Deaf people|Category:Deaf inventors}}. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support, these are trivial intersections.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nom. I'd consider deafness to be defining in conjunction with some occupations — specifically ones like acting and singing, where deafness is unusual and noteworthy precisely because the occupation normally depends on being able to hear — but it's trivial in conjunction with many other occupations that don't have the same connection to hearing. Certainly care should be taken to ensure that people aren't removed from
Category:Deaf people (hence "upmerge" rather than "delete"), but every possible intersection of deafness with occupation isn't automatically a defining intersection.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:37, 13 February 2018 (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.
Flores
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, without prejudice to any future nomination to consider a name other than "Flores Island (Indonesia)", but which is not as ambiguous as "Flores". --
Black Falcon(
talk) 01:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose –
Flores (disambiguation) is ambiguous. The one I know is: "At Flores in Azores Sir Richard Grenville lay"
[5].
Oculi (
talk) 21:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Flores is ambiguous. The category needs to have that clarity.
Twiceuponatime (
talk) 10:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The best known Flores is surely in the Azores.
Grutness...wha? 23:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose, while this is not the right place to question whether
Flores is the primary topic, it is nevertheless better to keep a disambiguator in the category name in very clearly ambiguous cases.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - per all comments above (as creator of the category (sic)) , bar grutness and oculi comments
JarrahTree 10:21, 16 February 2018 (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:Years and decades by continent (Early Middle Ages)
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 all per revised nomination. The nominator @
Marcocapelle said that some categories need manual work, but I am not sure that I fully understand which ones are involved. Please, Marcocapelle, can you leave a message on my talk to help me identify which actions I should feed to the bot? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 20:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The complete list of nominated categories is listed on the
talk page
Nominator's rationale: merge. First of all, the distinction between Europe and Asia is arbitrary and anachronistic in the Middle Ages. If one would like to make a distinction based on foreign relations in the Middle Ages, the continents would probably look like: 1) Europe, North Africa, West and Central Asia; 2) South Asia; 3) East Asia. Second, we currently only have two continents left with year categories in the Middle Ages, Europe and Asia, which makes the continent layer completely redundant. Third, after merging, the year categories will still be of very modest size.
This nomination goes until the year 962, which is the starting year of the years by country tree (see
Category:10th-century years by country), which overlaps strongly with the continental trees. This adds another complexity, so the High and Late Middle Ages will be left for a next nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep misinterpretation of smallcat as these form part of a larger series of establishments by year which extends to the current time period. Using 962 as a cut-off seems extremely arbitrary and it is likely categories will get recreated.
Tim! (
talk) 13:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Support all per nom. The distinction between Europe and Asia at that time is indeed arbitrary and anachronistic. The starting year of the years by country tree is a good starting point. Starts to bulk up from then onwards.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 19:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Keeping Europe and Asia as separate categories would be clearly redundant.
Ceosad (
talk) 10:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 16:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted in particular to allow further discussion of the selection of the year 962 as a cut-off. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 16:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per Tim!. As he says, these categories form a larger series of establishments by year. The cutoff year is very arbitrary and makes no sense. It's also not all that hard to distinguish between Europe and Asia. ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 18:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Assuming that it helps, I will add the 962-999 categories in order to have a less arbitrary cut-off. Note that these should be manually merged, since part of the content is in the parallel by country categories that start in 962.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support This is a series of minuscule categories which do not help navigation. I suspect we could usefully take this forward to 1500, but we should probably only consider one century at a time.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Agree with @
Peterkingiron: We should only consider "by year" categories for the Modern Period (i.e. after the Middle Ages which is generally understood to be marked by the
Fall of Constantinople, or 1500 for round numbers as P suggests.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 11:02, 12 February 2018 (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.
Children's picture books
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 all per revised nomination. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 20:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, all categories have 1-3 articles. This is not a matter of a large established tree, there are dozens of single articles in
Category:Children's picture books.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Robina Fox: that is a very relevant comment. Which of these picture book categories do you think are not about picture books?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Okay so it's not entire categories that should be deleted (rather than merged).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Change – American and British authors/illustrators above should be upmerged to the American or British children's picture books categories instead.
Robina Fox (
talk) 16:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)reply
(as nominator) Agree with merging to British/American subcats if appropriate. The reason why the proposal has been formulated as is, is simply that the nominated categories are currently not in a British/American subcats either.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment. I doubt any closer will be inclined to identify which categs relate to British authors, which to American, and which to neither. So someone needs to do that work and amend the nomination. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Done Though I have skipped books that seem to have been published in the United Kingdom and the United States simultaneously.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:56, 8 February 2018 (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:Songs from Carousel (musical)
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 to parent categories: I'm pretty sure this one is doomed to never break beyond being a
WP:SMALLCAT. Only three entries at present.
DonIago (
talk) 14:16, 7 February 2018 (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:Fauna of North Korea
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.
Merge -- I very much doubt there is much difference in the fauna of either country from adjacent parts of China. However merging to East Asia would be going to far, as that covers many different climactic zones.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose - that is rediculous, maybe we should also merge Fauna of US and Fauna of Mexico cause they are similar? Maybe also Fauna of US and Fauna of Canada? North Korea and South Korea are separate states and each deserves a "Fauna of <country>" category. You are not supreme deity in some computer fame to decide merging countries.
GreyShark (
dibra) 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep
Category:Fauna of North Korea, and merge others. I made some checklists of by-country categories for each of Fauna, Birds, Invertebrates and Fish:
Fauna by country — complete set, except for countries with limited recognition
So despite the unhelpful hyperbole, @
Greyshark09 is right about the Fauna category. However, in all the other cases there are plenty of precedents for upmerging country categories to avoid category clutter. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for that analysis. Note: some of the 'categories' shown in blue in those lists are redirects (e.g.
Category:Invertebrates of Laos).
I've withdrawn the fauna category from this cfd as even the likes of Monaco and San Marino have a fauna category (containing lists rather than species articles). However that category should be purged (e.g. removing those articles that don't mention Korea). DexDor(talk) 06:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
BTW, I counted the redlinks the lazy way, by just
grepping lines with zero pages, so my counts of "redlinks" are actually "categories with no pages", which will include any redirects. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 14:31, 15 February 2018 (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:Birds of the Faroe Islands
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: That a bird species (e.g.
Northern fulmar or
Great auk) is/was found on these islands is non-defining. Note: An upmerge to Atlantic categories could also be considered. Note: The birds category was deleted at
this CFD, but was re-created (by a now blocked editor). DexDor(talk) 10:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge perhaps after listifying. These local biota categories are a form of category clutter.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:48, 10 February 2018 (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:San Beda College alumni
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 school has renamed itself as the San Beda University.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk) 04:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
If so, support -- There is a long precedent for alumni being deemed to have attended an amalgamated or renamed successor.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:47, 10 February 2018 (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.
Procedural comment@
Peacock: the subcategories also need to be tagged with {{subst:cfm|ProposedName|SectionName}} ... i.e. {{subst:cfm|Deaf people|Category:Deaf inventors}}. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support, these are trivial intersections.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nom. I'd consider deafness to be defining in conjunction with some occupations — specifically ones like acting and singing, where deafness is unusual and noteworthy precisely because the occupation normally depends on being able to hear — but it's trivial in conjunction with many other occupations that don't have the same connection to hearing. Certainly care should be taken to ensure that people aren't removed from
Category:Deaf people (hence "upmerge" rather than "delete"), but every possible intersection of deafness with occupation isn't automatically a defining intersection.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:37, 13 February 2018 (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.
Flores
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, without prejudice to any future nomination to consider a name other than "Flores Island (Indonesia)", but which is not as ambiguous as "Flores". --
Black Falcon(
talk) 01:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose –
Flores (disambiguation) is ambiguous. The one I know is: "At Flores in Azores Sir Richard Grenville lay"
[5].
Oculi (
talk) 21:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Flores is ambiguous. The category needs to have that clarity.
Twiceuponatime (
talk) 10:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The best known Flores is surely in the Azores.
Grutness...wha? 23:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose, while this is not the right place to question whether
Flores is the primary topic, it is nevertheless better to keep a disambiguator in the category name in very clearly ambiguous cases.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - per all comments above (as creator of the category (sic)) , bar grutness and oculi comments
JarrahTree 10:21, 16 February 2018 (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:Years and decades by continent (Early Middle Ages)
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 all per revised nomination. The nominator @
Marcocapelle said that some categories need manual work, but I am not sure that I fully understand which ones are involved. Please, Marcocapelle, can you leave a message on my talk to help me identify which actions I should feed to the bot? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 20:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The complete list of nominated categories is listed on the
talk page
Nominator's rationale: merge. First of all, the distinction between Europe and Asia is arbitrary and anachronistic in the Middle Ages. If one would like to make a distinction based on foreign relations in the Middle Ages, the continents would probably look like: 1) Europe, North Africa, West and Central Asia; 2) South Asia; 3) East Asia. Second, we currently only have two continents left with year categories in the Middle Ages, Europe and Asia, which makes the continent layer completely redundant. Third, after merging, the year categories will still be of very modest size.
This nomination goes until the year 962, which is the starting year of the years by country tree (see
Category:10th-century years by country), which overlaps strongly with the continental trees. This adds another complexity, so the High and Late Middle Ages will be left for a next nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep misinterpretation of smallcat as these form part of a larger series of establishments by year which extends to the current time period. Using 962 as a cut-off seems extremely arbitrary and it is likely categories will get recreated.
Tim! (
talk) 13:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Support all per nom. The distinction between Europe and Asia at that time is indeed arbitrary and anachronistic. The starting year of the years by country tree is a good starting point. Starts to bulk up from then onwards.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 19:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Keeping Europe and Asia as separate categories would be clearly redundant.
Ceosad (
talk) 10:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 16:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted in particular to allow further discussion of the selection of the year 962 as a cut-off. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 16:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per Tim!. As he says, these categories form a larger series of establishments by year. The cutoff year is very arbitrary and makes no sense. It's also not all that hard to distinguish between Europe and Asia. ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 18:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Assuming that it helps, I will add the 962-999 categories in order to have a less arbitrary cut-off. Note that these should be manually merged, since part of the content is in the parallel by country categories that start in 962.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support This is a series of minuscule categories which do not help navigation. I suspect we could usefully take this forward to 1500, but we should probably only consider one century at a time.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Agree with @
Peterkingiron: We should only consider "by year" categories for the Modern Period (i.e. after the Middle Ages which is generally understood to be marked by the
Fall of Constantinople, or 1500 for round numbers as P suggests.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 11:02, 12 February 2018 (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.
Children's picture books
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 all per revised nomination. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 20:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, all categories have 1-3 articles. This is not a matter of a large established tree, there are dozens of single articles in
Category:Children's picture books.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Robina Fox: that is a very relevant comment. Which of these picture book categories do you think are not about picture books?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Okay so it's not entire categories that should be deleted (rather than merged).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Change – American and British authors/illustrators above should be upmerged to the American or British children's picture books categories instead.
Robina Fox (
talk) 16:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)reply
(as nominator) Agree with merging to British/American subcats if appropriate. The reason why the proposal has been formulated as is, is simply that the nominated categories are currently not in a British/American subcats either.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment. I doubt any closer will be inclined to identify which categs relate to British authors, which to American, and which to neither. So someone needs to do that work and amend the nomination. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Done Though I have skipped books that seem to have been published in the United Kingdom and the United States simultaneously.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:56, 8 February 2018 (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:Songs from Carousel (musical)
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 to parent categories: I'm pretty sure this one is doomed to never break beyond being a
WP:SMALLCAT. Only three entries at present.
DonIago (
talk) 14:16, 7 February 2018 (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:Fauna of North Korea
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.
Merge -- I very much doubt there is much difference in the fauna of either country from adjacent parts of China. However merging to East Asia would be going to far, as that covers many different climactic zones.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose - that is rediculous, maybe we should also merge Fauna of US and Fauna of Mexico cause they are similar? Maybe also Fauna of US and Fauna of Canada? North Korea and South Korea are separate states and each deserves a "Fauna of <country>" category. You are not supreme deity in some computer fame to decide merging countries.
GreyShark (
dibra) 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep
Category:Fauna of North Korea, and merge others. I made some checklists of by-country categories for each of Fauna, Birds, Invertebrates and Fish:
Fauna by country — complete set, except for countries with limited recognition
So despite the unhelpful hyperbole, @
Greyshark09 is right about the Fauna category. However, in all the other cases there are plenty of precedents for upmerging country categories to avoid category clutter. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for that analysis. Note: some of the 'categories' shown in blue in those lists are redirects (e.g.
Category:Invertebrates of Laos).
I've withdrawn the fauna category from this cfd as even the likes of Monaco and San Marino have a fauna category (containing lists rather than species articles). However that category should be purged (e.g. removing those articles that don't mention Korea). DexDor(talk) 06:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
BTW, I counted the redlinks the lazy way, by just
grepping lines with zero pages, so my counts of "redlinks" are actually "categories with no pages", which will include any redirects. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 14:31, 15 February 2018 (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:Birds of the Faroe Islands
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: That a bird species (e.g.
Northern fulmar or
Great auk) is/was found on these islands is non-defining. Note: An upmerge to Atlantic categories could also be considered. Note: The birds category was deleted at
this CFD, but was re-created (by a now blocked editor). DexDor(talk) 10:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge perhaps after listifying. These local biota categories are a form of category clutter.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:48, 10 February 2018 (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:San Beda College alumni
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 school has renamed itself as the San Beda University.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk) 04:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
If so, support -- There is a long precedent for alumni being deemed to have attended an amalgamated or renamed successor.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:47, 10 February 2018 (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.