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 12:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Pointless category made up entirely of redirects which all point to the same section of an article that serves nothing more than a discography page. No benefit to readers. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Gparyani (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the nomination statement. This would be a perfectly valid category if any of those album bluelinks were proper articles, but AFAICS they're just a load of redirects at present, so there's no need for this category — sparklism hey! 14:56, 24 June 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:Fictional American people of Icelandic descent[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. MER-C 11:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to say I think we should delete most of these categories. Ancestry is less defining and more trivial for fictional characters. The fact that it has been applied to characters who never had it defined in their work of fiction shows these categories lead to original research, or just making stuff up. The extreme example was when Charley Brown was put in Category:Fictional American people of English descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:17, 21 June 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 11:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: does not imply any sort of ability, knowledge, or interest that could be relevant to encyclopedia-building — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should never have left DRAFTspace -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I can see that an individual user's PROD log may be useful, I can't see any reason why grouping them together would be. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 03:26, 17 June 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 11:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: does not imply any sort of ability, knowledge, or interest that could be relevant to encyclopedia-building — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful category as it provides an easy way to browse through userspace CSD logs. These logs can be used for various sorts of casual analysis (like which CSD criteria are being used frequently, etc) especially by those of us who won't download the big database dumps for that purpose. The only other way to browse through CSD logs is Special:Search, which is naturally more inconvenient. The nom's rationale doesn't make much sense. 103.6.158.193 (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete@103.6.158.193: This category is not automatically added; rather, it is manually added by the user whose log it is. If you want to use it as a means of doing "various sorts of casual analysis (like which CSD criteria are being used frequently, etc)", you'd need to add it to every CSD log in existence and request to the developers of each automated tool creating such a log to add this category to every newly created CSD log. Though Special:Search is "naturally more inconvenient", it's certainly possible. The nominator is right; does categorizing every CSD log help maintain or improve the encyclopedia? Gparyani (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For doing casual analysis, we don't need to examine every CSD log, we just need to examine a few of them. In what way does the existence of this category hurt anyone? Also, it is not necessary that the cat be added by the log owner. Any user can take the liberty to add the cat to anyone's log (as I have been doing) provided that the log owner does not object. 103.6.158.193 (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@103.6.158.193: Actually, it's not quite true that "anyone can ... add the [category] to anyone's log". You must first have their permission. Plus, just sampling 33 logs out of thousands of logs is a really tiny sample. I know statistics, and when you take a sample for analysis, the smaller your sample is relative to the population, the higher the chance is that it won't accurately represent the population. To make this an accurate measurement, you'd need to obtain everyone's permission to add this to their CSD logs, then request to the authors of every automated tool to have it added to each newly created log, then do the analysis. Or, you could just do away with this category since it doesn't help maintain or improve the encyclopedia (a point which you failed to address in your rebuttal). Gparyani (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should never have left DRAFTspace -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You did not follow procedure. So the page should be deleted because it is procedurally invalid. There are procedures for you to follow to evaluate drafts for putting up as live content, and you didn't follow them. So, it should be deleted because it should never have left DRAFTspace. It is a very simple explanation, and it is fully specified. So it isn't a vote, is a wholly reasoned opinion. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I can see that an individual user's CSD log may be useful, I can't see any reason why grouping them together would be. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 03:30, 17 June 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 11:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: does not imply any sort of ability, knowledge, or interest that could be relevant to encyclopedia-building — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should never have left DRAFTspace -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this but very few users have XfD logs, so maybe there is no point having a category. Even worse, this category can inspire some users to create their XfD logs, which is actually just a waste of time. 103.6.158.193 (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I can see that an individual user's XfD log may be useful, I can't see any reason why grouping them together would be. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 03:31, 17 June 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:Wikipedians by alma mater: Universidad Tecnológica de México[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 this category, without prejudice to recreation if it can be populated with Wikipedians. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article has no users in it, only a template. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 16:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am not sure that this a a recognised type of category. We have alumni categories in main category space. If we keep this at all it should be renamed to that format, but I doubt we need it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keepWhether this type of category is useful is debatable. However I would argue that alumni have not only heightened interest but special insite into sources. However what is clear is this is part of a much larger tree. The naming here is also part of a much larger tree. There is no reason to single out this category. As long as say Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Harvard University etc. exist, I see no reason not to have this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:21, 21 June 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. Thank you, DexDor, for thorough research in advance. – FayenaticLondon 18:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:PreviousCFDs have upmerged Birds-of-<country> categories to Birds-of-Europe and Birds-of-the-Middle-East. This category was not included in either of those discussions because Turkey overlaps both areas. For most/all of the species in this category (e.g. Great skua) being found in Turkey is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. Having categories for overlapping areas is an unnecessary complication to the category structure. There is List of birds of Turkey. Note: All of the articles (currently) in this category are in either Category:Birds of Europe or Category:Birds of Asia (which includes Category:Birds of the Middle East) and the majority (242/255) are in both. Note: I've removed some articles that make no mention of Turkey (e.g. Yellow-billed stork) from the category and done other tidying up in this area. List of birds of Turkey and Category:Important Bird Areas of Turkey should be upmerged. DexDor(talk) 06:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge/delete - agree w/precedent. Neutralitytalk 03:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge/delete – per precedents in many previous discussions. Oculi (talk) 12:14, 21 June 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: A user category that is unlikely to benefit collaboration between Wikipedians. DexDor(talk) 06:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have no objections. I actually made that category by accident whilst creating a user box. Rihaz(Talk to me • Stuff I did) 08:04, 15 June 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: We don't normally categorize organizations (e.g. Punjab Metrobus Authority) by which government created them as it's generally a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the organization (especially in the longer term). Note: This is the sort of thing that is much better presented in text or a list on the relevant article.DexDor(talk) 05:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Modi category: See WP:OSE. If this CFD is closed as delete then I intend to do a CFD for the Modi category. Note: categories are intended to group together similar articles (e.g. within the topic of education or transport), not things that are related by being an initiative of the same government. DexDor(talk) 22:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEF, most articles even don't mention Shehbaz Sharif. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 27 June 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.
Delete duplication of existing government agencies category -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Category:Government agencies of Pakistan, to reparent the one article. Government agencies is an Americanism, which is probably meaningless elsewhere, but that is a discussion for another day. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 20 June 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 12:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The nom fails to point out that HEC is Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, apparently a funding body, presumably a governmental one. This differs slighty from the association memberships that we have regularly deleted recentl. The question is how many univerities in Pakistan are not HEC-recognised. If it is few or none, then it will be a duplicate of Universities in Pakistan, which would not be worth having. Can anyone work this out? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 20 June 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. – FayenaticLondon 18:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No one has the corresponding userbox on their user page, so the only thing saving this from speedy deletion as an empty category is the userbox itself. Plus, given that deleting unsourced BLPs is official policy, there is really no need for this userbox/category pair. See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User blp deleteGparyani (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The userbox (template) shouldn't be in this category. DexDor(talk) 05:49, 15 June 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.
Rihaz (Talk to me • Stuff I did) 08:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)