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: I originally thought the redlink in the category was a typo. Then, I found that
NWT Sport Hall of Fame was deleted last year. Since the main article is deleted, I don't think the category is needed. Was going to speedy request this under G8 but this isnt a category populated by a deleted template, hence this nomination.
MrLinkinPark333 (
talk)
22:16, 19 October 2022 (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: Only 1 page in the category and will likely only ever have 1 page (would've CSD'd but didn't see any valid criteria) ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Dear @
Blaze Wolf I have checked all existing districts and cities categories format about Pakistan. Murree District is used for administrative related pages only while Murree is being used for all Murree related page. Murree District is newly created district. I have to create more category as per format of other districts. I will not create any category, which is not used for districts.
AAonlyA (
talk)
14:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I still don't quite understand. What do you mean by "I have checked all existing districts and cities categories format about Pakistan"? ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep -- The nom seems to be on the basis that this is a duplicate of
Category:Murree, but that should refer to the city. The district has a number of other populated places, so that having bothn is justified.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:36, 23 October 2022 (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:The Great British Bake Off winners
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: I appreciate the distinction between "winners" and "contestants", or rather sub-categorizing "winners" as a child category of "contestants". However, most of the pages are rather redirects mainly as result of merging the winner articles into
List of The Great British Bake Off finalists, which I created a year ago. Also, there are very few notable runners-up and eliminated contestants having their own articles in the "contestants" category. As I figured, filling the "contestants" category with winners would help minimize the distinction between Bake Off "contestants" and "winners".
George Ho (
talk)
21:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support and remove the redirects (also from the parent category), having redirects in a category to an article that is also in that same category is not helpful at all for finding more information about a topic.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Both these are ultimately Performance by performer categories, which are not normally allowed. The issue is that in this case the performers are generally notable for nothing else. Do we need either?
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep and keep the redirects, for those redirects which are useful. Eg
David Atherton (baker) is a useful redirect to an informative section. (In contrast
Beca Lyne-Pirkis is not a useful redirect as the article merely mentions her a few times: this redirect cannot be made useful and should be deleted.)
Oculi (
talk)
09:36, 12 October 2022 (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.
Wikipedians interested in redlinked sports teams
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 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.
Wikipedians interested in Esports teams
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 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 from Ulyanovsk Oblast
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 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:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose, the authority of Amnesty International in the field of prisoners of conscience is comparable to the authority of Nobel prizes in the field of awards. For Nobel prizes we allow award categories by exception, so should we allow AI categories in this other field by exception.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose I believe this came up during the failed suggestion to delete the Political Prisoners category sometime ago, that only "designated" ones like these categories should be allowed to exist. I disagreed then. But here I think being identified by Amnesty and being made part of a campaign is actually defining for some historical political prisoners who might otherwise not have become widely known.
Dan Carkner (
talk)
22:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep -- If we had a robust category for "Prisoners of conscience held by foo-land", I would have supported a proposal to merge them to a more general category, but we do not. There are certainly other bodies that seek to identify those imprisoned for their views (for example on religion).
Keston Institute did this for Christian victims of communism. Until someone can come up with a robust alternative, we need to keep this series. At present the only parent is a general one relating to prisoners of foo-land, which does not distinguish between criminals and political or religious dissidents.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose per previous explanations, I didn’t even know about Amnesty International until now, but even I recognise the significance of these categories since reading up about this organisation. —
Mugtheboss (
talk)
15:41, 27 October 2022 (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 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:NATO member countries and the Russo-Ukrainian war
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: Procedural nomination from
deletion review which I closed as relist.
Prior Cfd is here. Original nominator
Bearcat (
talk·contribs)'s rationale: WP:TOPTEN violation. Although there's no head article to explain exactly what a "Thai national heritage film" is, and most of the articles filed here provide absolutely no context for their inclusion either, I've been able to sort out from one of the articles (Bad Genius) that the Thai Film Archive releases an annual list of films from the past year that it has deemed culturally or artistically significant -- basically Canada's Top Ten, but for Thailand instead of Canada. Accordingly, a properly sourced article that listed the inducted films would be fine, but we don't categorize for inclusion in other organizations' proprietary and copyrighted ranking lists.
XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done01:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)reply
In the previous CfD discussion I said "delete per nom". In the DRV discussion, Paul_012 correctly pointed out that it should have been possibly listify and delete per nom. The closer of this discussion might list the category members here on the talk page so that anyone can pick it up to convert it to a proper list article.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
04:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Tentative keep. The nominator's claim is incorrect. The registry in question is not an editorial list subjectively compiled by a single publication (which is what
WP:TOPTEN covers), but a designation made by Thailand's main government body responsible for film conservation, listing the most historically and culturally significant Thai films of all time (not just those from the previous year), with annual additions to the list. It hardly bears resemblance to
Canada's Top Ten, but is more directly comparable to the United States'
National Film Registry, for which we have a category at
Category:United States National Film Registry films. That said,
WP:other stuff exists is not a reason for keeping, and that's not what I'm arguing. But as the single most authoritative designation of films regarded as the most important in Thai cinematic history, it serves as a helpful proxy for readers wishing to browse through such important films, even if the designation itself may not yet have become a strictly defining aspect mentioned by the large majority of sources covering the individual films themselves. This is a bit of an
WP:IAR argument on my part. Failing that, I would favour listifying into the
National Film Heritage Registry article, which I have since started (and would have done so earlier during the original CfD had I received a notification as the category creator). --
Paul_012 (
talk)
14:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I have restored the category for this CFD discussion. I have no idea though what pages were in this category when it was deleted. LizRead!Talk!07:50, 20 October 2022 (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: I originally thought the redlink in the category was a typo. Then, I found that
NWT Sport Hall of Fame was deleted last year. Since the main article is deleted, I don't think the category is needed. Was going to speedy request this under G8 but this isnt a category populated by a deleted template, hence this nomination.
MrLinkinPark333 (
talk)
22:16, 19 October 2022 (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: Only 1 page in the category and will likely only ever have 1 page (would've CSD'd but didn't see any valid criteria) ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Dear @
Blaze Wolf I have checked all existing districts and cities categories format about Pakistan. Murree District is used for administrative related pages only while Murree is being used for all Murree related page. Murree District is newly created district. I have to create more category as per format of other districts. I will not create any category, which is not used for districts.
AAonlyA (
talk)
14:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I still don't quite understand. What do you mean by "I have checked all existing districts and cities categories format about Pakistan"? ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep -- The nom seems to be on the basis that this is a duplicate of
Category:Murree, but that should refer to the city. The district has a number of other populated places, so that having bothn is justified.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:36, 23 October 2022 (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:The Great British Bake Off winners
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: I appreciate the distinction between "winners" and "contestants", or rather sub-categorizing "winners" as a child category of "contestants". However, most of the pages are rather redirects mainly as result of merging the winner articles into
List of The Great British Bake Off finalists, which I created a year ago. Also, there are very few notable runners-up and eliminated contestants having their own articles in the "contestants" category. As I figured, filling the "contestants" category with winners would help minimize the distinction between Bake Off "contestants" and "winners".
George Ho (
talk)
21:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support and remove the redirects (also from the parent category), having redirects in a category to an article that is also in that same category is not helpful at all for finding more information about a topic.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Both these are ultimately Performance by performer categories, which are not normally allowed. The issue is that in this case the performers are generally notable for nothing else. Do we need either?
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep and keep the redirects, for those redirects which are useful. Eg
David Atherton (baker) is a useful redirect to an informative section. (In contrast
Beca Lyne-Pirkis is not a useful redirect as the article merely mentions her a few times: this redirect cannot be made useful and should be deleted.)
Oculi (
talk)
09:36, 12 October 2022 (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.
Wikipedians interested in redlinked sports teams
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 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.
Wikipedians interested in Esports teams
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 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 from Ulyanovsk Oblast
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 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:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose, the authority of Amnesty International in the field of prisoners of conscience is comparable to the authority of Nobel prizes in the field of awards. For Nobel prizes we allow award categories by exception, so should we allow AI categories in this other field by exception.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose I believe this came up during the failed suggestion to delete the Political Prisoners category sometime ago, that only "designated" ones like these categories should be allowed to exist. I disagreed then. But here I think being identified by Amnesty and being made part of a campaign is actually defining for some historical political prisoners who might otherwise not have become widely known.
Dan Carkner (
talk)
22:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep -- If we had a robust category for "Prisoners of conscience held by foo-land", I would have supported a proposal to merge them to a more general category, but we do not. There are certainly other bodies that seek to identify those imprisoned for their views (for example on religion).
Keston Institute did this for Christian victims of communism. Until someone can come up with a robust alternative, we need to keep this series. At present the only parent is a general one relating to prisoners of foo-land, which does not distinguish between criminals and political or religious dissidents.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose per previous explanations, I didn’t even know about Amnesty International until now, but even I recognise the significance of these categories since reading up about this organisation. —
Mugtheboss (
talk)
15:41, 27 October 2022 (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 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:NATO member countries and the Russo-Ukrainian war
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: Procedural nomination from
deletion review which I closed as relist.
Prior Cfd is here. Original nominator
Bearcat (
talk·contribs)'s rationale: WP:TOPTEN violation. Although there's no head article to explain exactly what a "Thai national heritage film" is, and most of the articles filed here provide absolutely no context for their inclusion either, I've been able to sort out from one of the articles (Bad Genius) that the Thai Film Archive releases an annual list of films from the past year that it has deemed culturally or artistically significant -- basically Canada's Top Ten, but for Thailand instead of Canada. Accordingly, a properly sourced article that listed the inducted films would be fine, but we don't categorize for inclusion in other organizations' proprietary and copyrighted ranking lists.
XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done01:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)reply
In the previous CfD discussion I said "delete per nom". In the DRV discussion, Paul_012 correctly pointed out that it should have been possibly listify and delete per nom. The closer of this discussion might list the category members here on the talk page so that anyone can pick it up to convert it to a proper list article.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
04:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Tentative keep. The nominator's claim is incorrect. The registry in question is not an editorial list subjectively compiled by a single publication (which is what
WP:TOPTEN covers), but a designation made by Thailand's main government body responsible for film conservation, listing the most historically and culturally significant Thai films of all time (not just those from the previous year), with annual additions to the list. It hardly bears resemblance to
Canada's Top Ten, but is more directly comparable to the United States'
National Film Registry, for which we have a category at
Category:United States National Film Registry films. That said,
WP:other stuff exists is not a reason for keeping, and that's not what I'm arguing. But as the single most authoritative designation of films regarded as the most important in Thai cinematic history, it serves as a helpful proxy for readers wishing to browse through such important films, even if the designation itself may not yet have become a strictly defining aspect mentioned by the large majority of sources covering the individual films themselves. This is a bit of an
WP:IAR argument on my part. Failing that, I would favour listifying into the
National Film Heritage Registry article, which I have since started (and would have done so earlier during the original CfD had I received a notification as the category creator). --
Paul_012 (
talk)
14:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I have restored the category for this CFD discussion. I have no idea though what pages were in this category when it was deleted. LizRead!Talk!07:50, 20 October 2022 (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.