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:make non-diffusing with no consensus about whether it should continue to exist.
(non-admin closure)HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 23:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: If there are concerns that lead to categories such as
Category:American male artists (and similar articles) being treated as non-diffusing, it seems that the same rationale should apply to Native American artists. (Apologies if I've made any formatting errors. This is my first time submitting a cfd.)
Katya (
talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and make non-diffusing. There seems to be solid academic interest in the intersection of gender and Native American artists, including exhibitions
[1][2], academic books
[3], and academic courses
[4]. I looked for women artists. Also if not kept, the category should also be merged to
American male artists and
American women artists.
Mason (
talk) 21:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So, it looks like there's been
discussion in the past about whether or not there should be any "male artist" categories, without any consensus. In the absence of consensus to delete them, I think we should keep the Native American male artist categories, in keeping with other paired male / female artist categories elsewhere on the site. (Or we could revisit the issue of whether "male artist" categories should exist at all, but I think that's a separate issue. Again, my original question was just whether or not the categories should be non-diffusing.)
Katya (
talk) 01:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 29 April 2024 (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:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic
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 contents seem to be broader than political office-holders, so "from" will be more appropriate than "of". –
FayenaticLondon 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, while "from" is the default, I think "of" is also a good possibility for politicians and for military personnel.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Of" is fitting for political office-holders, but we don't use it for politicians generally. I suppose we have "opposition politicians of a country" who are appointed to a formal role, but e.g. revolutionaries or independence activists would be better described as "from" the country. –
FayenaticLondon 22:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support for consistency and given the broader scope of the category.
Mason (
talk) 21:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 05:37, 7 May 2024 (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.
Politicians of the Korean Empire
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.
At least purge, possibly rename, people who weren't a politician in the Korean Empire do not belong here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have added project banners on the talk page, which may draw more participation via Article Alerts. –
FayenaticLondon 09:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support purge and rename plan per provided reasoning.
104.232.119.107 (
talk) 12:28, 4 May 2024 (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:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
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:Purge and rename. E.g.
Abdul Rashid Dostum was a military officer, not a politician, of the DRA (1978–1992). –
FayenaticLondon 15:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
At least purge, possibly rename per nom.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have added project banners on the talk page, which may draw more participation via Article Alerts. –
FayenaticLondon 09:49, 1 May 2024 (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:Muppet performers
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.
These actors are on contract with either Jim Henson Company or Disney (Muppet), Sesame Workshop (Sesame Street), or Jim Henson Company (Fraggle Rock), to perform numerous roles. Such contracts are incredibly rare, and even the most finite involvement with any of them, the puppeteer remains known as having been part of the troupe, akin to a college alumni category.
Keep, especially the Muppet category. They're distinct performances/performers, categories and brands of puppeteering.
Scanlan (
talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge as nominated per nom. It is certainly a textbook
WP:PERFCAT. HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 13:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. --
Aldij (
talk) 15:49, 10 June 2024 (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:Lists of films by year
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: A prior discussion at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 11#Lists of films by country or language split the "Lists of YYYY films by country or language" subcategories that used to be here into separate country and language categories, which is fine and I'm not disputing that result -- but now this category is a bit confusing and difficult to navigate because of its mixture of two categories (one by country and one by language) per year for virtually every year after 1920. So now that by-country and by-language are two separate sets of categories rather than one set of merged ones, they should actually be split up to their own separate parent categories rather than being mixed together in the same place. This can certainly still be kept as a parent for those two new subcategories, if desired, but the by-country and by-language categories really should be split up into separate subcategories.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Yes, the lists should be kept seperate I think.♦
Dr. Blofeld 05:04, 30 April 2024 (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:Defunct National Basketball League of Canada 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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. This is a fringe subject with only three articles and one subcat, which has a tendentious name (there are no "remote viewers", remote viewing is nonsense). Creator is permabanned and globally locked. Guy (
help! -
typo?) 21:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Even that is a small category with no hope of expansion (because it doesn't exist any more). Guy (
help! -
typo?) 15:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I will note that
WP:SMALLCAT is no longer a guideline. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 12:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep but UpmergeCategory:Remote viewers to
Category:Remote viewing. Nom is correct that this is a fringe subject generally considered pseudoscience, and the claim that anyone is a "remote viewer" is
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT /
WP:OPINIONCAT. But I think we can put them in the parent category as people making claims about
remote viewing, which at least has a main article. This seems to solve most issues pointed out by nom. I just think they nominated the wrong category to be changed.
NLeeuw (
talk) 15:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep both as sufficiently well populated to be useful for navigation. People are normally categorised separately from topics, see
WP:SEPARATE, and the remote viewers category has parents which look useful for navigation.
Hella Hammid is not mentioned in the main article, but states that "Hammid was also a remote viewer who worked with
Russell Targ and
Harold E. Puthoff at SRI International doing work for the CIA" with five citations, so the involvement of these persons is sufficiently well documented. –
FayenaticLondon 10:02, 1 May 2024 (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: Unhelpful for navigation to have a category that's with two pages (just the band and their discography)
Mason (
talk) 03:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination. The discography page doesn't look like it would survive an AfD as is anyway, and I'm not even sure the main article would. Regardless, the main article doesn't look likely to spawn any more additional pages any time soon, so the category would be staying at two entries.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 04:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the articles are already interlinked directly.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:07, 29 April 2024 (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:Housing rights organizations in Nashville
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 for now. There's only one page in this category, which is uphelpful for navigation. If not merged, it should be renamed to Housing rights organizations based in Nashville, Tennessee
Mason (
talk) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (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:Television in Cleveland
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.
Not all content is about original programming.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Most of these categories have scopes that go beyond television programming. No objection to creating subcategories for programming, where appropriate. -
Eureka Lott 05:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming, but support creation of subcategories. The proposed categories could legitimately be created as subcategories of the "Television in" categories where there are enough programs to support one, but just doing a straight rename of the "Television in" categories isn't appropriate as they don't only contain original local programs — they also have subcategories for (and/or directly contain) television stations, and people, and television programs that were national Hollywood productions set or filmed in that place but not "original" local-channel programming per se. I'll grant that they're misfiled as subcategories of a "local television programming" tree, so that should be moved to subcategories if they get created, but these categories don't only contain original local programming.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (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:make non-diffusing with no consensus about whether it should continue to exist.
(non-admin closure)HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 23:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: If there are concerns that lead to categories such as
Category:American male artists (and similar articles) being treated as non-diffusing, it seems that the same rationale should apply to Native American artists. (Apologies if I've made any formatting errors. This is my first time submitting a cfd.)
Katya (
talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and make non-diffusing. There seems to be solid academic interest in the intersection of gender and Native American artists, including exhibitions
[1][2], academic books
[3], and academic courses
[4]. I looked for women artists. Also if not kept, the category should also be merged to
American male artists and
American women artists.
Mason (
talk) 21:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So, it looks like there's been
discussion in the past about whether or not there should be any "male artist" categories, without any consensus. In the absence of consensus to delete them, I think we should keep the Native American male artist categories, in keeping with other paired male / female artist categories elsewhere on the site. (Or we could revisit the issue of whether "male artist" categories should exist at all, but I think that's a separate issue. Again, my original question was just whether or not the categories should be non-diffusing.)
Katya (
talk) 01:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 29 April 2024 (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:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic
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 contents seem to be broader than political office-holders, so "from" will be more appropriate than "of". –
FayenaticLondon 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, while "from" is the default, I think "of" is also a good possibility for politicians and for military personnel.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Of" is fitting for political office-holders, but we don't use it for politicians generally. I suppose we have "opposition politicians of a country" who are appointed to a formal role, but e.g. revolutionaries or independence activists would be better described as "from" the country. –
FayenaticLondon 22:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support for consistency and given the broader scope of the category.
Mason (
talk) 21:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 05:37, 7 May 2024 (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.
Politicians of the Korean Empire
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.
At least purge, possibly rename, people who weren't a politician in the Korean Empire do not belong here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have added project banners on the talk page, which may draw more participation via Article Alerts. –
FayenaticLondon 09:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support purge and rename plan per provided reasoning.
104.232.119.107 (
talk) 12:28, 4 May 2024 (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:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
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:Purge and rename. E.g.
Abdul Rashid Dostum was a military officer, not a politician, of the DRA (1978–1992). –
FayenaticLondon 15:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
At least purge, possibly rename per nom.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have added project banners on the talk page, which may draw more participation via Article Alerts. –
FayenaticLondon 09:49, 1 May 2024 (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:Muppet performers
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.
These actors are on contract with either Jim Henson Company or Disney (Muppet), Sesame Workshop (Sesame Street), or Jim Henson Company (Fraggle Rock), to perform numerous roles. Such contracts are incredibly rare, and even the most finite involvement with any of them, the puppeteer remains known as having been part of the troupe, akin to a college alumni category.
Keep, especially the Muppet category. They're distinct performances/performers, categories and brands of puppeteering.
Scanlan (
talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge as nominated per nom. It is certainly a textbook
WP:PERFCAT. HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 13:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. --
Aldij (
talk) 15:49, 10 June 2024 (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:Lists of films by year
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: A prior discussion at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 11#Lists of films by country or language split the "Lists of YYYY films by country or language" subcategories that used to be here into separate country and language categories, which is fine and I'm not disputing that result -- but now this category is a bit confusing and difficult to navigate because of its mixture of two categories (one by country and one by language) per year for virtually every year after 1920. So now that by-country and by-language are two separate sets of categories rather than one set of merged ones, they should actually be split up to their own separate parent categories rather than being mixed together in the same place. This can certainly still be kept as a parent for those two new subcategories, if desired, but the by-country and by-language categories really should be split up into separate subcategories.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Yes, the lists should be kept seperate I think.♦
Dr. Blofeld 05:04, 30 April 2024 (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:Defunct National Basketball League of Canada 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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. This is a fringe subject with only three articles and one subcat, which has a tendentious name (there are no "remote viewers", remote viewing is nonsense). Creator is permabanned and globally locked. Guy (
help! -
typo?) 21:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Even that is a small category with no hope of expansion (because it doesn't exist any more). Guy (
help! -
typo?) 15:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I will note that
WP:SMALLCAT is no longer a guideline. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 12:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep but UpmergeCategory:Remote viewers to
Category:Remote viewing. Nom is correct that this is a fringe subject generally considered pseudoscience, and the claim that anyone is a "remote viewer" is
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT /
WP:OPINIONCAT. But I think we can put them in the parent category as people making claims about
remote viewing, which at least has a main article. This seems to solve most issues pointed out by nom. I just think they nominated the wrong category to be changed.
NLeeuw (
talk) 15:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep both as sufficiently well populated to be useful for navigation. People are normally categorised separately from topics, see
WP:SEPARATE, and the remote viewers category has parents which look useful for navigation.
Hella Hammid is not mentioned in the main article, but states that "Hammid was also a remote viewer who worked with
Russell Targ and
Harold E. Puthoff at SRI International doing work for the CIA" with five citations, so the involvement of these persons is sufficiently well documented. –
FayenaticLondon 10:02, 1 May 2024 (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: Unhelpful for navigation to have a category that's with two pages (just the band and their discography)
Mason (
talk) 03:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination. The discography page doesn't look like it would survive an AfD as is anyway, and I'm not even sure the main article would. Regardless, the main article doesn't look likely to spawn any more additional pages any time soon, so the category would be staying at two entries.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 04:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the articles are already interlinked directly.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:07, 29 April 2024 (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:Housing rights organizations in Nashville
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 for now. There's only one page in this category, which is uphelpful for navigation. If not merged, it should be renamed to Housing rights organizations based in Nashville, Tennessee
Mason (
talk) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (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:Television in Cleveland
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.
Not all content is about original programming.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Most of these categories have scopes that go beyond television programming. No objection to creating subcategories for programming, where appropriate. -
Eureka Lott 05:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming, but support creation of subcategories. The proposed categories could legitimately be created as subcategories of the "Television in" categories where there are enough programs to support one, but just doing a straight rename of the "Television in" categories isn't appropriate as they don't only contain original local programs — they also have subcategories for (and/or directly contain) television stations, and people, and television programs that were national Hollywood productions set or filmed in that place but not "original" local-channel programming per se. I'll grant that they're misfiled as subcategories of a "local television programming" tree, so that should be moved to subcategories if they get created, but these categories don't only contain original local programming.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (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.