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.
Keep. There is a category for Ultimate Marvel characters on each characters page on Wikipedia, while there is a wikipedia page called, List of Ultimate Marvel characters. But the category is never threatened with deletion. Why do we have to delete the MCU character category if you won't delete the other Ultimate Marvel characters category?- Zzaxx1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can nominate it. Samsara 20:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename. The acronym is not acceptable in a category name, it should be spelled out. Samsara 20:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appearing in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of tbese characters. Phil Coulson and Erik Selvig are defined by the MCU because what they were created for, but that's only two characters. For the rest, it's just another appearance in "other media". Reach Out to the Truth 00:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Triiiple and ROttT - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete recreation of deleted material. A list or template may be created, but not a category. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, at the very least it should be renamed "Category:Characters that appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe", as the average user may not know what the MCU is. Richiekim (talk) 15:59, 2 March 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:Objects named with variable star designations[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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The fact that a star is best known by its variable star name, rather than it's proper name, nova name, Bayer name, Flamsteed name, or whatever, is not defining for the star. Overcat by shared naming. By the way, we have plenty of categories for variable stars, irrespective of what they are called, based on what type of variability they exhibit. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that the nomination is flawed: the category covers all stars with a variable star designation, not just those without another designation. That is, stars with multiple designations appear in multiple categories. This is clear from the description, by inspecting the contents, or examining some articles on variable stars. For example, R Coronae Borealis is in three different categories related to names (variable star, Henry Draper and HR). Regardless of whether the category is desirable, the rationale given in the nomination is clearly incorrect so there can be no case for deletion. Modest Geniustalk 22:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stars (and anything else) shouldn't be categorized by a characteristic of (one of) their names, but by characteristics of the objects themselves (e.g. in Category:R Coronae Borealis variables). DexDor (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Modest Genius. The nominator is incorrect, this does not contain only articles with their article titles using variable star designations, this category contains objects that have variable star designations. Variable star designations, Flamsteed designations, Bayer designations, are the most commonly used names for bright stars. Visually bright stars are different from the set of all stars, being easily visually available to observers from Earth. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep otherwise we would have to have a list to maintain this information. Getting a list of articles in the category on these named stars is useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as objects with variable star designations are ones that have been officially accepted as variable by the International Astronomical Union (and thus the category's membership is determined by an intrinsic property of the stars themselves). Ardric47 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 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:keep. MER-C 08:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Categorizing objects (mostly stars) by whether or not they appeared in Flamsteed's catalog, but not in Bayer's apparently, is over categorization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that the nomination is flawed: the category covers all stars with a Flamsteed designation, not just those without a Bayer designation. That is, stars with both Bayer and Flamsteed designations appear in both categories. This is clear from the description, and by inspecting the contents. Regardless of whether the category is desirable, the rationale given in the nomination is clearly incorrect so there can be no case for deletion. Modest Geniustalk 22:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Objects (e.g. stars) shouldn't be categorized by which catalogues they appear in (and stars shouldn't be placed in Category:Catalogues). E.g. we don't categorize cities or species by which books they are mentioned in. DexDor (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Modest Genius. The nominator is incorrect, this does not contain only articles with their article titles using Flamsteed designations, this category contains objects that have Flamsteed designations. Variable star designations, Flamsteed designations, Bayer designations, are the most commonly used names for bright stars. Visually bright stars are different from the set of all stars, being easily visually available to observers from Earth. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This sort of catalog entry is an important characteristic of what humans know about a star. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? That a star is in Flamsteed's catalog tells you what about the star (other than it's in Flamsteed's book)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important category and it used for covering the stars having Flamsteed designations. SamuelDay1 (talk) 13:38, 8 March 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:keep. MER-C 08:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Categorization of various objects (mostly stars) solely based on their inclusion in the Uranometria of Johann Bayer. We ought not be categorizing unlike objects together solely because they appeared in someone's catalog. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With a small number of exceptions that have common names, the Bayer designation is the standard and most frequently used name of the star. Bayer designations are used all the time by astronomers, both professional and amateur. There is a conceivable need to use the category for navigation e.g. looking through the alpha stars of each constellation, or the alphabetical order within a single constellation. The nominator provides no justification for why categories shouldn't be used in this way - which policies or guidelines does it break? Modest Geniustalk 22:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That we call things thusly does not define the star in any way. There is no physical or mystical properties discernable from something being a Bayer object, other than Bayer noted it. A "George Washington slept here" category... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How so? That's just an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Besides, the letter assignments do relate to the properties of the stars as seen from Earth, albeit not in a straightforward manner. Just being in the Bayer catalogue tells you something about the star - it was visible to a naked-eye observer. See Bayer designation. Modest Geniustalk 14:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per my comment above. DexDor (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Modest Genius. Samsara 01:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Modest Genius. The nominator is incorrect, this does not contain only articles with their article titles using Bayer designations, this category contains objects that have Bayer designations. Variable star designations, Flamsteed designations, Bayer designations, are the most commonly used names for bright stars. Visually bright stars are different from the set of all stars, being easily visually available to observers from Earth. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This sort of catalog entry is an important characteristic of what humans know about a star. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 3 March 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:Level crossing accidents in the United States[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:Rename. This is where consensus is. However the comment by Nyttend raises the question of the proposed target being the best result. So this rename does not prevent a follow up one to determine a more accurate name. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. WP:ENGVAR: American English is grade crossing. It seems odd to have a "level crossing" category in an article that consistently states "grade crossing". Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, per nom. It's a reasonable demand, although Wikipedia has never been known to be "America-centric," so to speak. I'm also willing to accept the same argument for the use of the word "Tram" on American streetcar-related articles. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: - is there any way to change the display of a category's name on the article so that it links to "level crossing accidents..." but displays as "grade crossing accidents'...? Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No... some people (newbies, mostly) do try to do that by syntax like [[Category:Level crossing accidents in the United States|Grade crossing accidents in the United States]] but that still displays as "Level crossing accidents in the United States" - the piped part causes the article to sort under G instead of whatever letter it should sort under. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it something that could be coded in? |display=Grade crossing accidents in the United States or similar. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only by filing a feature request at phab:. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: if we can get the code implemented, I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. I can see both sides of the argument, and being able to change the display of a category would solve the ENGVAR problem without upsetting the category tree. Can I ask you to sort the request at phab please? Mjroots (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
phab:T90869 filed. BTW amendments like these won't re-trigger a failed notification. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: thanks for that. We'll see what happens over at phab. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per WP:ENGVAR. This happens throughout the category system: we use appropriate spelling/terminology for categories on US articles. Oculi (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Oculi. Where there is an ENGVAR issue, it is normal for the top level categories to be in e.g. British English, the sub categories of that to be in British English until you get to categories covering only the area using a different (in this example American English) term, where the ENGVAR principle of national ties means there is a category split - areas using BrEng continue to use that, but areas using AmEng switch to that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Oculi. Correct per WP:TIES, and there's already plenty of cats where the ENGVAR differs from the parent cat based on the contents of the cats. oknazevad (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely support. --IJBall (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've never heard the term "grade crossing" by itself in this context, and while I've not experienced all of the USA, I don't see how this could be the most common US term for the concept. "At-grade crossing" or simply "railroad crossing" are both more common. I support the idea of renaming this category, just as I'd support renaming "Petrol stations in the United States" or "Gas stations in the United Kingdom" if they existed, but the proposed new name doesn't fit. See the introduction to the level crossing article, which says "usually known as a railroad crossing in North America". Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 3 March 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 deletion rationale is that this characteristic is non-defining. The reference to the list (after "For info") is mainly to assist other editors (e.g. who might otherwise !vote listify not realising that there is already a list).
That it's "a prestigious technology award, awarded since 1875" etc isn't disputed (and would be relevant if the article about the award was at AFD), but has little/no relevance to this CFD; this CFD is about whether having this award is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of AT&T etc.
As for "it is a defining award, that is why it appears in their obituaries" an obituary can contain hundreds of facts - that logic would put an article in hundreds of categories (see WP:DNWAUC). DexDor (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This prestigious award was a defining characteristic for many of its awardees. To counter the assertion that AT&T's award was not notable, here's a an article about the award in the industry journal Telephone Review, from 1916. Third party observers of the day thought it was worthy. And there's a lot more where that came from, for instance Telephony magazine in 1910 talking about the Elliott Cresson Medal awarded to the Chicago company called Automatic Electric, and in 1920 the journal called Electrical World announced the winner as General Electric. Today the award is nothing, having been folded into a common award scheme by the Franklin Institute (a move that I consider wrong-headed), but the current status of the award does not matter. Back in the day it was a big deal, and the category reflects that. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That AT&T's award was discussed in an industry journal (in 1916) is hardly proof that having the award is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the company. Many facts may be sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the article, but not sufficiently defining for categorization. Articles like AT&T Corporation shouldn't be categorized by characteristics that are not even mentioned in the article text; that's going beyond WP:DNWAUC. DexDor (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. From what I can see, this falls well within WP:OC#AWARD. It is a notable award and would therefore in many cases would be mentioned in biographical articles, but it's not defining for the recipients, especially not for the corporate recipients. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:08, 5 March 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATDEF, this category is not a defining characteristic of the people targeted. The assessment came many years after their fame, and did not add to their fame at all. The article 50 great voices already has these people listed, so there's no need to listify the category. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Nominator's rationale: I think your rationale (Nominator's rationale) is almost right. But it is also true that there are a lot of people including me, who get to know the singers of "50 great voices" for the first time because NPR, a prominent and reliable American media organization, selected them as 50 great voices. So I disagree the point you say that the assessment did not add to their fame at all. The assessment did add to their fame, at least for some of "50 great voices", such as, I think, Esma Redžepova and Mohammad-Reza Shajarian and Radmilla Cody and so on.--Junn-junnNPR (talk) 07:57, 25 February 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:speedily deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it for speedy deletion as it was created by an obvious sock of Masu7. APKwhisper in my ear 09:10, 25 February 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.
Award categories with no articles about the awards (countries A–B)[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:see individual sections below
Nominator's rationale: None of these award categories have articles about the awards. I suggest that before we consider having a category for recipients of an award, we should have an article about the award. Most of them are not populated enough to justify listifying. You may write here for comments that apply to all the categories nominated in this section, or you may comment below the individual section for comments that relate to any of the particular categories. (These are categories from countries A to B; if there is support for actioning these, I can follow this up with more nominations for countries C to Z.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. We should indeed have the articles before the categories. Oculi (talk) 16:39, 25 February 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.
Burmese award categories with no articles about the awards[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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 07:24, 25 February 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.
Bruneian award categories with no articles about the awards[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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and the ones below. We should indeed have the articles before the categories. Oculi (talk) 13:10, 25 February 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.
Botswana award categories with no articles about the awards[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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 07:24, 25 February 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is presently no article Order of Naval Merit (Bolivia). I suggest that before we consider having a category for recipients of an award, we should have an article about the award. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 07:24, 25 February 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:Recipients of the National Order of Merit (Benin)[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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is presently no article National Order of Merit (Benin). I suggest that before we consider having a category for recipients of an award, we should have an article about the award. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 07:24, 25 February 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:Recipients of the Meritorious Service Award (Belize)[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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is presently no article Meritorious Service Award (Belize). I suggest that before we consider having a category for recipients of an award, we should have an article about the award. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 07:24, 25 February 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:Recipients of the Order of Friendship of Peoples (Belarus)[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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is presently no article Order of Friendship of Peoples (Belarus). I suggest that before we consider having a category for recipients of an award, we should have an article about the award. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 07:24, 25 February 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is presently no article Order of Khalifa. I suggest that before we consider having a category for recipients of an award, we should have an article about the award. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 07:24, 25 February 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.
Armenian award categories with no articles about the awards[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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 07:24, 25 February 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:Recipients of the Ghazi Mir Bacha Khan Medal[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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is presently no article Ghazi Mir Bacha Khan Medal. I suggest that before we consider having a category for recipients of an award, we should have an article about the award. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 07:24, 25 February 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.
