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.
Support nomination to clarify that it is a set category, not a topic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 7 September 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: Not a sensible category. Some games feature in-game elements of Art Deco, but they cannot be considered "Art Deco games" and is not a defining trait of the games listed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nomination. "Art Deco games" really doesn't make any sense, and if we renamed it, we'd still run into the problem that it isn't a defining characteristic. Many films prominently feature Art Deco designs, but nobody would call them "Art Deco films". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defining characteristic, at least within the field of video games. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:14, 30 August 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:WP:SMALLCAT. For the foreseeable future, only one article will fit in this category. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 14:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator). It's a pity that before linking to WP:SMALLCAT, the nominator didn't read it more carefully. It says "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country" (emphasis added by me). This category is part of just such a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme": it is one of 97 subcategories of Category:Olympic alpine skiers by country, so it clearly meets that exemption. I note too, that the nominator proposes only to delete the category, rather than to merge it. Deletion of an intersection category such as this removes an article from multiple category trees, and the nominator offers no reason for doing so. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Parent Category I'm not sure how well established this tree really is since Category:Olympic alpine skiers by country contains dozens of under-populated 1 and 2 article subcategories. I would actually favor getting rid of the parent category, Category:Colombian alpine skiers since, while 1 category might be warranted, 2 definitely are not needed to hold just 1 article. (Note: I tagged the parent category so it can be considered when this nomination is closed.) RevelationDirect (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: I see your point about the parent category, and it would be less disruptive to remove the parent Category:Colombian alpine skiers, because would cause fewer categories to be added to the article. I don't support its removal, but I won't oppose it. However, once again I note that you have tagged it for deletion, even though the effect of that would be to orphan Category:Olympic alpine skiers of Colombia for several other category trees. (Sorry if I sound snippy about this, but I am quite worried about the number of CFD proposals for deletion which would have these destructive effects, and where merger would be the appropriate way of removing the category.) In this case, ifCategory:Colombian alpine skiers is to be removed, it should be merged to both Category:Alpine skiers and to Category:Colombian skiers. As to the initial Category:Olympic alpine skiers of Colombia, please note that it's grandparent Category:Olympic alpine skiers is fully diffused by country, as are all the other subcats of Category:Winter Olympics competitors by sport and Category:Summer Olympics competitors by sport. If editors want to end the pattern of full diffusion of these categories, this should be done on a systematic basis, taking an overview of the category tree and involving WP:OLYMPICS, rather than randomly selecting one category out of a set. There is a good case for full diffusion, both from a maintenance perspective (where full diffusion is much more easily maintained), and from a navigation perspective. Navigation is improved by reducing category clutter on articles, because if these categories are upmerged, they need to be replaced on the article with two or three other categories. Navigation is also improved at the category level, because the reader can see that if we have an article for a fooer from barCountry, then it will be an explicitly labelled category. Without full diffusion, the reader is left rummaging around in an "others" set of undiffused articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it is common practice to have cats for athletes by country by discipline for the Olympics. - YellowDingo(talk) 10:51, 29 August 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.
The result of the discussion was:Merge/delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, the amount of categories here is about the double of the amount of articles. The larger part of the content consists of railways and railway stations which might be joined later to a rail subcategory within the establishments tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - These small annual categories are a menace and need to be upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per both the above.Le Deluge (talk) 20:08, 30 August 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename/merge as proposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:C2D, alignment with main article name. It's not a speedy nomination because it also involves a merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Oculi (talk) 18:23, 29 August 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: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 5 articles seem like more than enough. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 19:45, 29 August 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.
Category:Members of the Yamaneko Group of Comet Observers[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.
According to the article, Yamaneko Group of Comet Observers, this is a group of astronomical observers in Japan. The only article in this category is Akimasa Nakamura so I linked the two articles to each other to maintain a navigational pathway. Other than on Wikis, I'm not finding much information online about this topic (at least in English) so I don't think the growth potential is good. Both articles are very short so it's not clear whether or not the membership is defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a good way to categorize people (categorizing by memberships could put some people in many categories). Lists are much better (and see essay WP:DNWAUC). If Category:Japanese astronomers needs breaking down into smaller categories (and at present it doesn't) then a by-century scheme would be better. DexDor(talk) 19:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There has been a group of amateurs in Japan who have spe4cialised in looking for comets and identified a lot o0f them. If this is them, it might well be defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the main article is expanded and to demonstrate notability and more than 1 biography category appear, I'm opening to reconsidering. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:40, 4 September 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.
According to the article, The Planetary Society, the organization has 40,000 members. This is not a learned society that is invitation only or restricts membership through an application process. If you want to join, just fill out this form, provide a credit card to pay $50/year, and you're immediately in the club. (Note that this includes a T-shirt!) I don't think this category comes within a country mile of being defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As explained by nom, non-defining. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 19:48, 29 August 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.
Relisted at 2016 SEP 28 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
