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. MER-C 05:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my comment, just realized the discussion was specifically about the current name of the conference, not the historical "Pacific-10" name. Support as proposed. Rikster2 (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2015 (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:delete. MER-C 05:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC#EPONYMOUS category for a person who doesn't have the content needed to warrant one — all there is here is BLP + 3 categories and a discography, which is not enough. As always, a person does not automatically get one of these just because she exists; there has to be a navigational need for it by virtue of a large volume of spinoff content that falls outside the standard albums/songs category scheme. This text has been taken from another nomination written by BearcatRichhoncho (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – 3 subcats is more than enough to justify an eponymous parent category. This one contains 22 articles in its subcats, quite enough. (The nom should link to the exact nom by Bearcat, as I am fairly sure that Bearcat's example did not have 3 subcats.) Oculi (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There aren't 22 distinct articles since the only songs in the songwriting category are all songs she has recorded/performed. An eponymous category should require additional navigation than what can be done by simply checking out the artist's discography page. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Insufficient distinct articles. Blues246 (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2016 (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: delete per WP:NONDEF, only one of the 14 articles in this category mentions "armiger". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- In England, armoger is the Latin for esquire. in theory it should mean a person entitled to a coat of arms, but in England (and I suspect Spain), that would be far too common to merit a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2015 (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:merge. MER-C 13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The spelling should be "Misogyny", but rather than renaming it, I suggest merging it into the parent category. I can't see any distinction between them. John of Reading (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge also per WP:SMALLCAT, while the category exists since October it doesn't seem like anyone is going to populate it. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2015 (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:Association of Christian Schools, Colleges and Universities[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete -- WE have repeatedly deleted categories for association membership by schools, colleges, etc. Furthermore, since this is a Filipino category, its scope should be apparent in the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (can listify if desired) - membership in this particular association or consortium is not defining, and overlaps the two categories mentioned by James. (There are some defining university consortia, e.g., the AAU, but this is not one of them). Neutralitytalk 21:01, 20 December 2015 (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: Per long-standing consensus with other "People associated with X" categories. cf. Wikipedia:OC#ASSOCIATED. Identical categories have been deleted in the past eg: The Beatles [1] and Madonna [2] . 747Tangent (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Associated with who? where? and why? Far too loose to have any meaning as a categorization. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook example of categorizing people by a nebulous association. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2015 (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:Establishments in Portuguese Macau by year[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. – FayenaticLondon 18:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only four years which use the name Portuguese Macau over Macau. Category:Establishments in Macau by year contains over 50 categories in the period 1557-1999, and as far as I can tell there is no territorial difference between Portuguese Macau and the Macao SAR. Tim! (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the different areas of India existed at the same time whereas there is no other Macau to disambiguate from. Tim! (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure "Portuguese Macau" is a widespread formal noun outside of Wikipedia; it's not like British Borneo as it was just known as "Macau". (There is a Portuguese Macau article though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support all If there were also an English Macau, we would need "Portuguese", but there is not, nor any other country's. The present Special Administrative Region is identical to the former colony in area. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2015 (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:delete. MER-C 13:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Under current Wikipedia norms, albums and singles are being categorized (i.e. defined) by the record label not the parent company or group that owned those labels when they were released. So a song like "Please Don't Leave Me", identified in the infobox as being released as a single on LaFace Records may be appropriately categorized in Category:LaFace Records singles, but it does not need to be or belong in Category:Zomba Label Group singles. This is overcategorization and because of a label's history and name changes and mergers from one company to the next, making these parents to the label category would also be inaccurate. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. As the nominator correctly points out current Wiki norms are to categorise by label and "Please Don't Leave Me, was issued on the LAFace Record LABEL, so it is incorrect to add to this category (as probably all the other entries). There is a difference between record label and record company and these categories ignore that. There is a whole problem with record labels - they come into being, stop, reappear and even change their names. Perhaps it is too much to categorise. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. The specific label on which an album was released has historically been a legitimate point of categorization, although as per Richhoncho there may be a valid reason to reconsider whether it should continue to be — but the larger multinational conglomerate that owned any individual record label isn't a helpful or useful or even really all that maintainable level of categorization. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2015 (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.
