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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Undo category split. The parent category is not big enough to bother splitting, and I would argue that the Controversial Reddit communities article, moreover, is largely treated by sources as reflecting on Reddit as a whole, such that it would belong in the parent category anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Too small and not meaningfully parented. --PanchoS (talk) 08:43, 30 July 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:People associated with Arthritis Research UK[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 both. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep not enough reason to warrant deletion...IMO (as I see the opinions below a mergecould be another possibility)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge the organization to Category:Arthritis organizations. The person is already well-categorized. For a category to exist it has to be plausible that it will be populated with members. Considering the other members of Category:Arthritis organizations, at this time there is not supporting evidence for treating this one differently. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. These are small categories with little potential for expansion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both lack an apparent population to be categorized. — soupvector (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first: it is already in the potential target. Repurpose/merge to a wider category dealing with researchers generally, something like Category:Arthritis researchers or Category:Arthritis research people. If a suitable target exists, merge to it. The one person was formally an offcer of the research charity, but I would guess that hen was more than that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to such a category if there are 4 or so more articles in addition to the 1 here. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:30, 6 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:Grand Masters of the Order of Saint Charles (Mexico)[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 both. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these awards were only given to Emperor of the Second Mexican Empire. There was only ever 1 emperor of the 2ME (Maximilian I). So it's not defining and will never grow beyond one article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Background We deleted similar automatic "Grand Master" categories with the Netherlands, Malaysia and Austria here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are textbook cases of non-defining. We have two categories, which both have one article, and in these two cases it is the same one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 1 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:delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Order of Elizabeth was an Austrian award for women created by Franz Joseph I of Austria. During it's 20 years of existence, an average of more than 100 women per year received the award so it doesn't seem defining. Strangely, the current category only contains 1 biography article: Franz Joseph's male son who never received the award and whose article makes no mention of it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category might be created, but if it is, it has to be used. Based on what Rev says it should have 2000 members, and perhaps the biographies of those recipients should be in Wikipedia. Whatever the case, it is premature to keep the category now when it is not being used at all. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Categories for selective state-awarded honours for merit (as opposed to awards given to anyone for being in a particular place at a particular time) are generally kept. There are two recipients listed in the article (the third, who wasn't born until after the end of the monarchy, wasn't actually awarded it). If we're taking numbers awarded as an indication of being defining then we would be deleting the categories for hundreds of awards (including the CBE, OBE and MBE!), so this is a complete non-argument. There should of course be sub-categories created for the recipients as with every other order. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Franz Joseph did give this award to 2 of his daughters but they certainly didn't win this on individual merit, although that's the stated purpose of the award, and the article makes no claim to being similar to the OBE. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The award was intended for ladies, regardless of social status or religion, for merits in religious and charitable work". Sounds very similar to the OBE to me! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the award is not defining for those included so far, and those for whom it might be defining do not as yet have articles. Oculi (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not defining for any of the articles so categorized. This is merely creating category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And your evidence for this is...what? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 3 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.
