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. If, in the future, anything other than Category:Christian schools in Thailand exists for either category, perhaps the issue could be revisited. But at this stage, those in favour of deletion have the stronger arguments here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While there are religious schools in Thailand, virtually all of them are Muslim, none of which currently have Wikipedia articles. All of the articles under the nominated cat's only member Category:Christian schools in Thailand, though affiliated with Christian organisations, are regular schools teaching secular curricula, and don't fit under this category. (I'm starting this discussion instead of emptying and speedying the category because I'm not sure how the subcat should be modified to properly reflect this.) Paul_012 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - superfluous layer of categorisation. There are literally hundreds of religious schools in Thailand - especially Christian ones. Not strictly relevant here, but I was Coordinator of English for a group of 43 very large religious secondary schools in Thailand teaching the Ministry of Education national syllabus. The categoryCategory:Religious education in Thailand is unrelated to the schools themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tim!, as I tried to explain above, the inclusion of these schools under the religious education tree is incorrect, as these are not religious schools in the sense used by the rest of the tree. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Religious school redirects to parochial school which reads "A parochial school is a private primary or secondary school affiliated with a religious organization, and whose curriculum includes general religious education in addition to secular subjects, such as science, mathematics and language arts." Affiliation with a religious organisation seems to be enough to say that a school is a religious school. I think it would be difficult to distinguish which schools are run by such organisations and those where the religion is actively taught, and would probably require the whole category tree to be reworked, not just for Thailand. Tim! (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schools; Delete Education. The argument about the religious school redirect takes us nowhere: in my view it is an inappropriate redirect, depending on them in fact being Christian: other religions do not use the term parish. It is certainly appropriate to have the Christian schools category. Even if they teach the state syllabus, they will do so from a Christian perspective and with a Christian ethos. We may one day get an article on a Muslim secondary school, which need to be parented into the tree, but I agree the education category is wholly redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 9 December 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:Articles that mention a specific track gauge[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. I think that in the discussion it was quite evident to everyone that participated that these categories are hidden tracking/administrative categories. However, the consensus I see is that there is no administrative benefit to them that is not otherwise achieved through regular categories. (One user dissented – I don't mean to suggest that there was unanimity.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category and all the "Articles that mention track gauge * mm" as they really serve no purpose but to clutter up Category:Tracking categories. What possible reason is there to track mentions of a gauge? Are we next going to start tracking any page that mentions a certain size of paper? Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 'clutter up' you noted, is solved then? -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see that 'clutter[ing] up Category:Tracking categories' the nom argues. These are just subcategories, and nicely listed as such. -DePiep (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Their purpose is this: research a specific track gauge. Through these (tracking) categories, one can look up all mentionings of that gauge. Possibly some articles should be added to the (content) category of that gauge! Also, such a search is needed to find a source for that gauge (in which article is the gauge defined by a RS?)! This way we have sourced 50 to 100 definitions. Or removed as 'unsourced'. The papersize analogy yields no argument IMO. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another maintenance job: add track gauge to Wikidata. -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
reorganize What I'm seeing is that there isn't an overall parent structure of track gauges, which would make more sense than these hidden categories which collect up a lot of incidental mentions along with duplicates of visible categories. The incidental should be suppressed; the locomotives and railways should sit under a single gauge category for each gauge, all under Category:Railway gauges. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already there: Category:Track gauges. And just as you describe them, these are the content categories, those with the subject meaning etc., relevant for the Reader. There is no imperative relationship with the maintenance categories under discussion here. IOW, the content categories have "nothing to do with them" as reason to delete/create/keep. (btw, 'Railway gauge' is ambiguous, hence 'track'). So I find no reason to reorganise, since that other organisation already exists. -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of there but there isn't actually gauges level of categories. However I am willing to do without that, I suppose, so delete these as redundant/misleading. Mangoe (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not "sort of", it is actually there. You did not get my reply. Again: Category:Track gauges is content space, and those weird cats are administrative (=maintenance) space. What is unclear? Why do you say 'sort of'? -DePiep (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I am willing to do without that" - eh, you do what without what? Are you going to maintain the track gauge definitions, without the admin categories? Or are you trying to say that others, like me, should work without them just because? -DePiep (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we shouldn't be categorizing articles based on what things they mention. If the track gauge is notable about the track, it should be in such a category, but mere mentioning of things is trivial. If it's kept it should probably be prefaced with "Wikipedia:" because we don't categorize the encyclopedia by "articles" but by content except with the "Wikipedia:" forename. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is true for content categories. Those aimed at the Reader. However, per WP:PROJCATS the categories under discussion here are hidden, tracking administrative categories, available for maintenance jobs. Example: the content category is Category:Iberian gauge railways, and the tracking category for maintenance is, say, Category:Articles that mention track gauge 1676 mm (I described some uses in my 19:50 post above). In tracking categories repetition and trivialness is not a negative per se. Did I clear this up? -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sound explanation of maintenance categories in general, but it's not quite clear why in this case maintenance categories are needed that more or less duplicate content categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mention actual jobs performed being performed, in my Keep post @ 19:50, above. I think it is enough to point to actual usages. -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For a purpose like this, couldn't any content category be duplicated to a maintenance category? (Which is what should be avoided, obviously.) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A: no, no. -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are we supposed to defend"explain" the principle of maintenance categories, again and again? -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These are the nom's arguments they really serve no purpose but to clutter up, What possible reason is there to track mentions of a gauge?, a certain size of paper, and but still.... After I explained why they exist, how they are used, and their irreplaceable contribution, I'm still not confident I have convinced people. The nom did not reply. Most worryingly, delete-!voters keep mixing up content and administrative categories. While none of them have been involved with the maintenance, and here they say "I" (!) don't need the categories -- while I (DePiep) am involved [1] and I state that we do need them. -DePiep (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful if another editor would explain the benefit of keeping, as the 19:50 post is not convincing, or at least not clear. It's unlikely that articles would be added to the maintenance category while not being added to the content category of that gauge. Also, if anywhere a source needs to be found for a gauge, it'll obviously be in the article about that gauge. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an other editor contributing would be helpful. But still: if this working, effective setup is unclear to you, how is that a rason to delete it? -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So far it's not clear to anyone, afaics. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
;-) to me it is clear. And I am someone who actually uses these categories to improve pages. -DePiep (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not defining. I'm fine categorizing actual track articles but a reference is not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being WP:defining is not required for administrative (hidden maintenance) categories. If you refer to content categories, that is not the topic here. -DePiep (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the administrative benefit here. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is that an argument? FYI, it has been described in this thread. -DePiep (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction on this description, see 19:54, 13 December, so far without a clear response. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, all others made the mistake of mixing up content category (defining etc) with administrative category. Also, there is no need to "explain the benefit of keeping" (as you wrote). If one cares to get it, fine. If one does not read or get it - so what? How would that prove that these are not maintenance categories? And even stronger, how is that a reason to delete? The nom has not been back here aftger their expressions of surprise -- and little more.
Or, from a different angle: which argument for deletion is to be discussed? -DePiep (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication of content categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who said so here? Looks like you are interpreting for someone else (I did not read). If that is your point, please start your own !vote entry. -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 18 December 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: This is not at all relevant information for the individuals being added to this list, nor is the category spelled right. Completely unnecessary to identify men who may (or may not) have had vasectomies unless it is somehow relevant to their notability. Chrissymad❯❯❯Talk 19:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no way that this could be considered a reasonable or rational way to categorize individuals. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a great idea. Probably a BLP violation as well. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A classic example of a very silly cat created by an extremely new user with already a history of disruptive editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- It ought be Category:Men who have had vasectomy. However this will be a NN characteristic. If referring to a BLP, there are questions of privacy and verifiability. Not a sueful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see any remotely plausible reason why having had a vasectomy would constitute a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 11 December 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:no consensus. For those who want a count, the !votes were essentially split, with 13 editors in favor of not retaining the category in its current form, and 13 editors in favor of keeping it in its current form. A solution/compromise which seems reasonable to me is one that was suggested a couple of different times amidst the discussion but was not really focused on by participants: conversion of the category to an administrative category. The most natural way of accomplishing this would be to categorize the talk pages of the articles as opposed to the main pages. That would seem to satisfy the main arguments of both sides: the utility of the grouping could be retained, and the guidelines on categorization could also be adhered to (since I agree that this designation is probably not "defining" in the guideline sense that is usually required for categorization). So perhaps a re-nomination that focuses on the compromise option would be in order, if anyone dares. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While the list article may be notable enough (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Women (BBC)) we only categorize people by honours when those are considered to be defining. In this case, we have notable women merely named to a BBC list--and that would fall short of the required level of defining-ness for a category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shawn. No opinion on the article since I opened the AfD on the request of the anon user. TimothyJosephWood 17:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and if it's useful for the edit-a-thon perhaps there's a way to make this an administrative category? I'm not trying to disrupt the great work being done on women's articles! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going out on a limb and against the majority of those who have already expressed a decision; however, the BBC 100 is much more than a "list". It is a series of discussions, following release of the list. [2] Some of these women would not have otherwise received press without the nomination for inclusion by the BBC, as by definition it includes inspirational women, not simply famous or noted women. [3] As just one example, what are the chances that a reindeer nomad from Siberia would be generating press in Peru [4] the subject of debate at a museum [5] and in the Iranian press [[6]] about women’s roles and what cultural definitions on being a good girl mean? Being part of the series IS what made her part of the discussion. SusunW (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right but to chose one of those examples, I'm not sure nomadic reindeer herder Lubov Russkina is ever going to be notable enough for a standalone bio article, simply because she's been added to this list? And so it does seem to me that for the majority of cases where this category would actually appear on a bio article, my deletion rationale still holds? And again, WP:OCAWARD cautions us to set a very high standard for such categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Russkina is only one example. Maybe she will never be notable, but look at the change in coverage which occurs before and after the BBC list was published for any number of these women. For example, Mumtaz Shaikh, a search from 2000-2014, brings up a few international articles, with brief mention of her as a director of her program. [7], [8], [9], [10]. Then look at the coverage of her after the award. Full articles on her and her program. Was she less notable before? No, the press did not find her interesting. Did the BBC list give her access to more in-depth coverage? I would argue that it did. [11], [12], [13]. SusunW (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good argument -- but ref 10, after the fact, doesn't seem to mention the BBC list? It's tricky to know where the cut off is for WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF: it's certainly not an exact science! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more and then I leave this to others to discuss and return to writing my article. I don't think that mention of the BBC list in itself is imperative. It is the fact that many of these women who were not celebrities, but notable or inspirational had little coverage before they were acknowledged on the list. Searching for Ella Ingram, Australia, depression, I found 0, articles prior to her inclusion in the BBC series of discussions on depression. (She began her fight in 2012 and admittedly, as I am searching from Mexico and not Australia, my results may be skewed to some extent, but that does not account for the exponential amount of coverage she has had since the BBC list.) Now, she has coverage, over time, in multiple RS. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. [20]. SusunW (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SusanW. This category is significant because it is a grouping of people who the BBC put together in a unique way with the intention of it being remarkable to be part of this grouping. If you study the process for inclusion, it goes beyond a simple recognition of individual achievement. It is a much more dynamic outcome for the women and the people who they represent. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEF, for the majority of women in this category this is just an award like many others, not really defining. With a few exceptions, we normally categorize people by the reason they were awarded, not by an award itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SusunW. Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with SusunW. The awards do help define the women. If a person is noted for any significant award, aren't they also defined by that award to some extent? The ability to make it into a category itself creates a definition of what the category is meant for. Also, it's useful. Anyone who wants to find these women by category on Wiki can easily do so. Categories should be useful: no need to get rid of a useful one. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
to find these women by category - that's what a search engine is for. Such categorisation defies the purpose (and so 'useful'-ness) of categories. -DePiep (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The search engine does not provide an actual stable list that can be browsed through in the same way as a category page does. Categories are useful in that they create a "basket" of topics that are similar based on a set of criteria. The criteria here is women who have been awarded this honor. If I want to find them all and browse them, a category is simply the best way to do it, hands down. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Continuing to be astounded that a very constructive organizational category is even in discussion to be deleted. What is the problem here? Is this per chance too encyclopedic? Too organizationally helpful? I mean really. Please keep this category. It is a notable initiative that is bringing nothing but great visibility to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia community GLOBALLY. The category highlights Wikipedia initiatives to address gender gap and diversity, and is being supported by large initiatives and stakeholders like Wikimedia UK and Women in Red. Keep Keep Keep. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the arguments are not related to the article. I knew what I was writing here, that it is about categories. A bit of feedback: It is frustrating to be told I did not know what I was writing.
This is early days into an initiative, so the concern about too many categories creating category clutter for the largest majority of the entries is a non-issue. For Alicia Keys, sure, but it's a mess down there already. It's really not the problem here, in my opinion.
Quite simply, keeping the category would help to collect the women and reflect a level of notability that is important, especially so for the more diverse nationalities that are not familiar to Western bias news sources. I firmly believe that there would be no productive reasoning for deletion. There is every reason to believe that keeping the category would be a helpful collocation of information.
Also as to the category not being in the lead of the article, being non-defining, I think that many honors and memberships are not necessarily in the lead and are not the first defining characteristic of many people, having nothing to do with gender. Some people have a lot of these honors and memberships but their entries very rightfully focus on the actual person's work as a higher priority of their entry. These facts are great supplementing information for notability, but are often superseded by all of the other work the people do as well. I personally hate things like this in the lead, think they need to stand as facts in the respective honors and membership sections, fully cited, of course. Important but not necessary in the lead. YMMV, of course.
When I read: It [this category] is a notable initiative that is bringing nothing but great visibility to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia community GLOBALLY, I could easily apply those qualifications to the article and the effects to enhance it (broadly). However, I can not relate them to the category itself, for reasons others already have mentioned. And no, I did not say you didn't know what you wrote. I said what I thought about what I read. -DePiep (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please check with WP:DEFINING. Allowing for an infinite number of categories would cause category clutter below the articles to such an extent that the whole categorization system would become useless. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being non-defining. If this was a defining attribute to the subject, it would be in the lead of each biography. The vast majority make a passing mention somewhere in the article, with some making no reference to this at all. This would work better as a project-focused tag that goes on the talkpage of the articles in scope. LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 10:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion (as is, earlier, the suggestion to make it an administrative (hidden) category. -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being non-defining. The article 100 Women (BBC) (which has been rightly kept) lists them all anyway, and is a better way of presenting the info. Oculi (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SusanW. ____Ebelular (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply because being non-defining. As for WP:OCAWARD, I note that the awarding was not in any way competitive or by open criteria. It was a BBC-internal selection, even 'arbitrary' would be an upgrading. This does not help the argument either. Having read the arguments here, keeping the category still sounds like for public campaigning, not for being encyclopdic. Support for a WikiProject approach. -DePiep (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none is notable for this WP:OCAWARD, all are notable for something else. We don't do categories on what one, even prestigious, media company says about things (top albums, top people, etc.) as there is no "real world" consequence for having been so named. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially per Carlossuarez46, Oculi, and Lugnuts to name a few. If we were to categorise people by every "list of X" that companies or pressure groups or media outlets produce (even the BBC), where would it end? Note that we don't have a category for the people chosen as Time Person of the Year, which is a much older and prestigious "award" getting a lot more coverage each year all round the world than this – we simply have a list of recipients in an article. The same is enough for the BBC list. BencherliteTalk 20:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The BBC have been doing an excellent job in finding inspiring women who owe their current fame to the BBC's coverage. The category is therefore "defining" for a fair number of them.--Ipigott (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, we do categorize for being part of a media series. Surely these women are defined as a group as much as [[Category:Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants]] or any of the other grouping of people that appear as part of a series.
the category deliniates a significant grouping of people who have more in common than say people who all attended xxxx university or were born in xxxx city.
It is well populated now and will continue to grow.
It is difficult to find information on Wikipedia. We need to make it as easy as possible to find the women who are recognized for being part of BBC 100 Women.
I know that I'm in the minority on Wikipedia, but I'm personally interested in finding these and similar women. Finding them by category should be available to me and others who are interested in pursuing research about them and others in similar categories. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Sydney Poore/FloNight and others - A review of existing categories suggests this is no more or less proper a category than the vast majority and it is a useful one for improving the ability to find the recipients. Certainly, it seems to me, to be more defining than some of the student award categories and it is effectively like being in a hall of fame, which is considered defining. ☕ Antiqueighthaver 02:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral note: when kept, the category should be renamed into Category:100 Women (BBC) per WP:C2D (category name follows article name). -DePiep (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I regard this as in the nature of an AWARD category, which we invariably listify and delete. The list article should certainly remain, as the BBC has identified some notable women who lack a WP article. Such people should be given a redlink in the article, to encourage the creation of articles on them. However we should not have a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:OCAWARD and kind of WP:TOPTEN as well. The article about the list already exists and I don't see a need to keep a category here. More importantly, I don't see why BBC needs to be accorded special treatment here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this award helps define notability for a number of these people, so I think this category is worth keeping. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a matter of feasibility. We currently have 400 potential article subjects here, most of which probably could meet notability standards now or in the future given access to other language sources. This series seems to be gaining steam, not losing it, and we can't have a list article with hundreds (thousands?) of notable subjects in it and call that a successful navigation tool. I came here prepared to advocate for deletion, as I initially found the same OCAWARD type arguments to hold significant weight. But we need to think about whether a list has any chance of being a good navigation tool here, especially in the long-term. ~ Rob13Talk 23:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather expect, if it will really grow to thousands of people, that it will lose its encyclopedic value altogether. It then becomes too trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SusunW, Sydney Poore/FloNight and Antiqueight. --Chris Howard (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no views yet on this, but someone who is good at tidying things up may want to look at Category:BBC 100 Women Edit-a-thon Nepal. If anyone does work on that, please add newly created articles in that category to the lists here, or the issues being discussed here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to projectspace. This could absolutely be kept in projectspace as a worklist category for articles connected to the project, but it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the women in the sense that's required to support a mainspace category. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with moving this too the talk pages. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TOPTEN and WP:OCAWARD. These people are notable for what they achieved which is why they received this award. This isn ot defining though and would create category clutter. Whether someone is inspiring is not an objective basis for categorization. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:54, 15 December 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: Category has just one entry. Mayors of this this size community aren't automatically notable. Also merge to Mayors of places in California....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mayors by city in the United States is not a category that's expected to automatically have a subcategory for every city that has mayors; the existence or non-existence of any subcategory remains conditional on whether there are enough mayors of that city to warrant a subcategory or not. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but also to the California mayors category. Local politicians are usually NN, so that the rule requiring a minimum population of perhaps 5 should still apply. Many precedents exist for such merger. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No prejudice against recreation if and when we have four or five mayors of Yorba Linda to categorize, but a town or city does not automatically get one of these the moment it has one mayor with an article to file in it. Category:Mayors by city in the United States does not mandate the creation of single-item subcategories. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 11 December 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:Egyptian films about Arab–Israeli conflict[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.
Merge per Lugnuts, but also to Egyptian films. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers the same problems as nearly all "films about" categories: how much about the subject must the film be, and what reliable sources tell us that it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you asking him? He keeps posting the same post in every discussion. Dimadick (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that. Didn't I just kill his argument? -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge twice, as proposed. (signing late) -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Arab–Israeli conflict films. Even if there were enough films in the category, there is no other war-related film category with country-specific subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 22:57, 8 December 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.
