Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 31

May 31

National Basketball Association venues by team

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 19#National Basketball Association venues by team

Category:Universiade venues

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) (t · c) buidhe 02:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Universiade venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Venues of the 2017 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCVENUE. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, they are mostly multi-purpose arenas, not specifically for universiades. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Venues of the 2020 Summer Olympics???????--寒吉 (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That category is nominated right here. Please provide your input (pro/con/other) at the correct nomination. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OCVENUE. The existence of categories for Olympic venues does not justify the existence of this category, as per WP:OSE. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appear to be multipurpose. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2023 (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:Flanders Campaign 1793–94

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 to Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition. @Nederlandse Leeuw and Marcocapelle: please go ahead and create the subcats as discussed. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Flanders Campaign 1793–94 to Category:French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: rename, "Flemish campaign" primarily refers to the British contribution in the Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, but this category is broader on the one hand (also including the French versus Habsburg encounters) and narrower on the other hand (since the articles are only about the Austrian Netherlands). I have no objection against creating Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition as a parent category, in order to also include Category:French conquest of the Dutch Republic. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

copy of opposed speedy discussion

Category:Flanders Campaign 1793–94 to Category:Flanders campaign – C2D: per Flanders campaign. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is valid as a Speedy because of ambiguity with the various topics for Battle of Flanders. But it could be speedily renamed to Category:Flanders campaign (1792–1795) under C2B, following MOS:DATERANGE, and extending the range to match the dates stated in the article. – Fayenatic London 15:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, that will do. The too narrow dating was my biggest concern. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: The main article Flanders campaign was renamed yesterday to Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, after Marcocapelle and I reached an agreement on this title at Talk:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition#Name and periodisation (I had already written down several observations and objections in June 2022, but nobody responded to it until now). I agree with WP:C2D as an argument for speedy renaming the cat, but that means the resulting new name will now be Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition. Because this significantly changes and complicates the nature of the discussion, and Marcocapelle and I have already been discussing reorganising the category tree on the talk page (where I already wrote down a lot of proposals), I think it's best to stop this speedy nom and make it a regular CfR to discuss this properly. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london and Nederlandse Leeuw: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. Rename to Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition: Thanks Marco for making this speedy a regular CfR. :-) My arguments remain largely the same: The main article Flanders campaign was renamed on 11 March 2023 to Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, after Marcocapelle (nom) and I reached an agreement on this title at Talk:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition#Name and periodisation (I had already written down several observations and objections in June 2022, but nobody responded to it until Marco did). I agreed with WP:C2D as an argument for speedy renaming the cat, but that meant the resulting new name would now be Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, so it's good that it's a regular CfR now. My adjoining proposals (posted on the talk page on 11 March) were, and with some adjustments still are, as follows:

B1. Re-parent from Category:1793 in the Habsburg monarchy and Category:1794 in the Habsburg monarchy to Category:1790s in the Habsburg monarchy.

B2. Add parent ~~Category:1790s in the Southern Netherlands~~ Category:18th century in the Southern Netherlands
B3. Add parents Category:Wars involving the Dutch Republic and Category:Wars involving the Habsburg monarchy
B4. Question: there is no Category:Wars involving the Austrian Netherlands, but there is a Category:Battles involving the Austrian Netherlands, which seems strange. It wasn't a sovereign state actor at the time, so perhaps either category shouldn't exist, because Category:Wars involving the Habsburg monarchy and Category:Battles involving the Habsburg monarchy (should) cover it already? I think Category:Battles involving the Austrian Netherlands should be ~~CfD'd~~ manually merged, also because it is in Category:Battles involving Belgium; which includes historical battles in which state of Belgium (1830–present) participated. That eliminates pre-1830 battles.

C. Remove Category:History of Flanders: inadequate for this article; just because British historians have termed it "Flanders campaign" doesn't mean Flanders as a county was particularly relevant here, only as part of the larger Austrian Netherlands.
D. Remove Category:History of the Low Countries: "Low Countries" is probably too broad. We ~~could~~ should create a ~~(container)~~cat in between named Category:Military history of the Low Countries. But that currently seems unnecessary; through Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, it will already be in Category:Wars involving the Dutch Republic and Category:Wars involving the Habsburg monarchy.
E. Remove Category:1793 in the Habsburg monarchy; through Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, it will already be in Category:1790s in the Habsburg monarchy.

My point #1 (see talk page) was that Austrian Netherlands is too narrow for the scope of the subject, and that the Dutch Republic, the Prince-Bishopric of Liège and all the other smaller semi-independent polities in the south should be included as they were interlinked.

My point #3 (see talk page) that a name like French (revolutionary) conquest of the Austrian Netherlands / Dutch Republic / Low Countries may just replace the British POV with a French POV, and might suffer from hindsight bias was the reason why I rejected the "Category:French conquest of" proposals, and advanced the new title Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition that Marco then accepted. So I think the "Category:French conquest of" proposals are now obsolete. On 12 March, Marco and I went back and forth about the consequences this would have for the category tree, and I think both of us have put forward arguments which had some merits, Marco expressing concerns about it becoming a rather isolated category. I suggested that my proposed creation of the parent Category:Military history of the Low Countries could solve this, as it would be a child of Category:History of the Low Countries, thus ending the "isolation" Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition would face. Moreover, I have already written List of wars in the Low Countries until 1560 and List of wars in the southern Low Countries (1560–1829), and these and several other pages and cats currently in Category:History of the Low Countries could also be moved to Category:Military history of the Low Countries. Although I initially thought it was currently unnecessary, I now think it's the missing link we need to create in order to fix the category tree. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously do not agree with each other on keeping this in the tree of the Austrian Netherlands. The Austrian Netherlands had not ceased to exist during this war, it only ceased to exist as a result of (hence at the conclusion of) the war. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but the Austrian Netherlands weren't a sovereign state, so Category:Battles involving the Austrian Netherlands is not a legitimate category per its grandparent Category:Battles by country: This category organizes battles by states (or significant non-state entities) participating in them. The Austrian Netherlands weren't a "state" or a "significant non-state entity"; it was a Habsburg possession. It's a bit like categorising Battle of Dogger Bank (1781) as Category:Battles involving Amsterdam because many of the Dutch ships and sailors involved were from Amsterdam. Amsterdam existed, it was an administrative unit with its own government etc., but it didn't (and couldn't) act as a sovereign state in this period (nor did it act as a "significant non-state entity" in this battle); the relevant state is the Dutch Republic. I think Category:Battles involving the Austrian Netherlands should be merged into Category:Battles involving Austria (which includes the Habsburg monarchy). There is no reason why e.g. Battle of Rocoux should be in Category:Battles involving the Austrian Netherlands but not in Category:Battles involving Austria; and with Battle of Fontenoy it's the other way around. And so on. "Category:Battles involving the Austrian Netherlands" just not the proper way of categorising military history, I think.
On the other hand, we could still put Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition in Category:Austrian Netherlands, alongside its sibling Category:Brabant Revolution. That way we solve the "involving" problem. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also the conquest of the Dutch Republic, so this calls for Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition to be the parent category of the two. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Marcocapelle Which two? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Nederlandse Leeuw: Category:French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands and Category:French conquest of the Dutch Republic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, ok. I don't see a need for those two categories, but should we create them, then yes, Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition would be their parent. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Marcocapelle maybe we can best clarify this with a couple of questions. Would you categorise Battle of Neerwinden (1793) as Category:French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands? Why (not)? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — would the contributors please fix the indentation and signing of their contributions? I'm finding this incomprehensible. If you have 3 subcategory rename suggestions, numbering them would help, but better to not make them look like nominations.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to fix it, I hope this helps. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still confused as to what exactly it is that we're being asked to approve. Can we get a single statement please of all the asks? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: the main question is, should we have a combined category for the French conquest of the low lands because it was one war theatre, or should we have two separate categories because it concerns two different countries. As appears at the end of the discussion, it does not matter a lot because we can have two country subcategories of one war theatre parent category, so we are already close to consensus. The only real question left, not for now, perhaps for a different discussion, is if this theatre category is arbitrarily defined. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Srnec has just turned the former main page name into a disamb: Flanders campaign.
@Marcocapelle Perhaps we could go for the option we had already discussed on 7 April (and which mirrors our compromise on "medieval Low Countries"), namely that we Rename to Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition (as I proposed), and Create the two subcategories called Category:French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands and Category:French conquest of the Dutch Republic (as you proposed). I think that is the best outcome for now. (Even though I think it's a bit weird to categorise a French defeat like Battle of Neerwinden (1793) as part of the "French conquest", but okay; it doesn't contradict the overall historical outcome.) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- For now, agree. It is time for some action. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Laurel Lodged We have reached an agreement: Rename to Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, and Create the two subcategories called Category:French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands and Category:French conquest of the Dutch Republic. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2023
Support the above 3 initiatives. However, I must frown on those changes that were made while this discussion was still underway. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2023 (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:Ted Lasso

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. ✗plicit 06:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Ted Lasso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too little content, redundant to the episodes cat. Nothing seems to need to be recategorized or merged. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bill Lawrence (TV producer) is not a Ted Lasso episode, so something would need to be recategorized or merged. What exactly is being proposed here? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ted Lasso is not an episode and does not belong in that category; List of awards and nominations received by Ted Lasso is not an episode and does not belong in that category; File:Tedlassotitlecard.jpg is not an episode and does not belong in that category. Gonnym (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is proposing to move those articles to that subcategory. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is being proposed is deleting Category:Ted Lasso. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCEPON. The above comments seem to assume that this is a merge proposal, but that is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle I did not assume anything. The nominator says redundant to the episodes cat. I've listed 3 pages that don't belong there, hence why this category isn't redundant. Also, please let us know how WP:OCEPON relates to this? The "Ted Lasso" in the category name isn't a person (or fictional character) but the name of the television series. Did you mean to link to something else? Gonnym (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, I meant WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this seems like a perfectly valid parent cat, of which the episodes cat can be a child. I do question if Bill Lawrence needs to included in this, but the main article and the awards list are good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs more than just the episodes subcat and a list. The episodes subcat can certainly survive as a standalone without the need for an eponymous parent category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now Per WP:SMALLCAT since it contains only the subcategory and 2 articles. (There is currently a miscategorized third article, Bill Lawrence (TV producer), but that's a clear WP:PERFCAT issue.) If/when this gets up to 5 legitimate direct articles, no objection to recreating. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2023 (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:Cemeteries in Chowan County, North Carolina

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: dual merge as stated in discussion. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Cemeteries in Chowan County, North Carolina to Category:Buildings and structures in Chowan County, North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT User:Namiba 17:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge, also to Category:Cemeteries in North Carolina. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per Marcocapelle. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sole article is already in Category:Cemeteries in North Carolina so a dual merge is not necessary.--User:Namiba 14:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is in that category because you just added it. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Merge per Marcocapelle. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Merge per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2023 (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:Alcohol and health

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 20#Category:Alcohol and health

Category:Former English Football League clubs

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 16:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Former English Football League clubs to Category:English Football League clubs

Nominator's rationale: This type of category is not used for that many other football leagues with promotion and relegation. Status of if clubs are playing or have played in the league is better conveyed in articles English Football League and List of former English Football League clubs.

Merge per nom and discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Diffusion_of_Category:English_Football_League_clubs where people say to return club articles to categories where they belong at the start of the week. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note. At the start of that week from 15 to 20 random club articles were in Category:Former English Football League clubs. Since that time the clubs were sorted carefully only. Teterev53 (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per WT:FOOTBALL discussion. Giant Snowman 18:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As of now, there are dozens of former league clubs / teams categories. You can see (association football): Category:Former A-League Men teams, Category:Former Highland Football League teams, Category:Former League of Ireland clubs, Category:Former National First Division clubs, Category:Former Premier Soccer League clubs, Category:Former USL Championship teams etc. Also there are many such categories in other sports: Category:Former Liga ACB teams, Category:Former British Basketball League teams (basketball), Category:Former Kontinental Hockey League teams, Category:Former Liiga teams (ice hockey), Category:Former Mexican League teams, Category:Former Frontier League teams (baseball) and many others. It's a standard practice to create such categories. It's need a more comprehensive decision for sports clubs categorization, not only about Category:Former English Football League clubs, an one branch from the big tree. Even List of former English Football League clubs exists as a main article for this category. Teterev53 (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As appropriate, clubs have categories for year of disestablishment and this would serve the same function. (I would also support future nominations with Teterev53's examples.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. That categories are not for defunct (disestablished) clubs. They are categorized by former league of club, and many active clubs in it. Teterev53 (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2023 (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:St Fintan's High School

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) (t · c) buidhe 02:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:St Fintan's High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Pointless single-article category, with no potential for expansion.

It now contains only the head article St. Fintan's High School, but when I found it also had several articles on past pupils, all of which were also in the subcat Category:People educated at St. Fintan's High School. I removed that duplication, per WP:SUBCAT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this approaches WP:C2F, one eponymous page. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2023 (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:Under-23 cricket 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 result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 06:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Under-23 cricket teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Under-23 cricket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Teams category is a WP:SMALLCAT and if deleted, the parent will be empty and redundant. the only under-23 cricket team articles we have are for Bangladesh and NZ, and as under-23 cricket is not a common age range for cricket events, unlikely more articles will be created for under-23 teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for Now with no objection to recreating if 5 articles ever appear. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2023 (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:Youth cricket in the United States

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. ✗plicit 06:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Youth cricket in the United States to Category:Youth cricket, Category:Youth sport in the United States and Category:Cricket in the United States

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Of the 4 articles listed, MLC Jr. Championship is a redirect, and 2021 Minor League Cricket season and 2022 Minor League Cricket season are not specifically youth tournaments, so shouldn't be in this category. As such, upmerging the 1-2 valid articles in this category is sensible Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now with no objection to recreating if 5 legitimate articles ever appear. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2023 (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:7th-millennium BC people

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 20#Category:7th-millennium BC people

Category:Misanthropy

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) (t · c) buidhe 02:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Misanthropy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - one eponymous article. would have nominated as a speedy C2F but there's a subcategory, also nominated for deletion. - car chasm (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2023 (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:Misanthropists

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) (t · c) buidhe 02:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Misanthropists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT,WP:OPINIONCAT - this is a loosely defined term. also WP:SMALLCAT as currently only one member - car chasm (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BLPCAT, except that the sole member is dead. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I believe it's even misspelt, it should be en:wikt:misanthropes, but alright. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If widely used, this would raise BLP issues. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2023 (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.