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 much potential for expansion - SIPS 1259-4336 is the only SIPS object on Wikipedia I know of, and I couldn't find any more objects. Also, SIPS (Southern Infrared Proper Motion Survey) is a relatively obscure star catalogue. Loooke (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: Whoops, when I meant "I couldn't find any more objects" I meant "I couldn't find any more objects that have articles on Wikipedia" – there are of course other SIPS objects, but a SIMBAD search for those objects shows that most of them aren't notable (see the number of references about that object), with the exception of LP 944-20 and maybe TWA 3. Loooke (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a shared name category; stellar things named for their discoverer is very much like cities named after some patron or another which we deleted long ago.[[1]] Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obscure astronomical catalogue whose members mostly don't meet WP:NASTRO, so won't be getting individual articles any time soon. We don't even have one on the catalogue, and SIPS 1259-4336 is of questionable notability. Single-entry cat with no real scope for expansion. Modest Geniustalk 11:57, 22 February 2017 (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:New Democratic Party candidates in the 1962 Canadian federal election[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:Merge. Timrollpickering 10:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly granular subcategorization on a characteristic that isn't a useful distinction from one election to the next. We don't subcategorize actual Canadian MPs by which individual Parliaments they served in or which specific elections they ran in, so there's very little need to subcategorize unsuccessful candidates more specifically than we do the actual MPs -- and since candidates frequently run multiple times rather than just once, this leads to category bloat (e.g. Dody Crane is in five of these at the same time) on a point of minor differentiation. And since being a candidate for office is not a notability claim in and of itself, a person will only have an article to file in any of these if they already cleared a notability standard for some other reason. So while the basic fact of having been a candidate period is an acceptable point of categorization, which particular election(s) they happened to run in is not especially defining in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there are a lot of comparable categories for other political parties as well — I believe they should all be deleted on the same grounds, but batching them all for discussion is going to take hours or maybe even days to finish, so this is merely the start of a long project rather than something that's being proposed solely for the NDP in isolation. It's better to start with one test case and then proceed with the rest after consensus is established, rather than wasting all my time up front in case there is a consensus that these should be kept for some other reason I'm missing. So if you believe these should be kept, then please provide a substantive reason why subcategorizing candidates by each individual election they ran in would be warranted, rather than resting on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a silly question, but should we categorize candidates at all, i.e. is that a defining characteristic in case they haven't become an MP? Or is "politician" instead of "candidate" good enough? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete Politics isn't my area but from memory there's a pretty hard guideline that membership of a legislature is notable but candidacy on its own is not. So that would make me raise an eyebrow at categorising candidates at all (ie possible delete all) - but I'd be happy to be guided by the politics specialists on Wikipedia. We've established that the "Churchill argument" for long-serving MPs means that categorising every Parliament they serve in is daft, so the same would apply even more so to candidacies.(ie strong merge whilst being open to deletion) If you really needed to subdivide then I suspect subcats by state might make a better one since most candidates tend to not stray very far geographically even if they might end up in many year categories.Le Deluge (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Candidacy isn't a notability claim in and of itself, of course, but there are instances where people who have been non-winning candidates for one office were previously or subsequently successful candidates for a different one, or established notability in a different field of endeavour. (Just for example, the 2015 category here contains five people who were previously NDP members of provincial legislatures but fell short when trying to go federal, and two people who actually had already been federal MPs for other parties but switched to the NDP for the 2015 election but failed to get reelected in that new context.) So no, a non-winning candidacy doesn't make a person notable per se, but some people who were notable for other reasons have also been non-winning candidates — and the latter is the basis on which "candidate" categories were permitted. There's certainly a case to be made that we should kibosh "candidate" categories altogether, on the grounds that since it's not a notability claim in its own right it's not WP:DEFINING — but that would impact the entire Category:Political candidates tree, which has subcategories for 14 other countries besides Canada, so it would require a wider discussion, and we couldn't settle it in this discussion on one small branch alone. Bearcat (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2017 (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, following stronger consensus for churches sub-cat (see below). – FayenaticLondon 23:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This cat seems to be an unthinking cross of a landform and a type of building: is there any significance to the fact that some b&s are on islands, especially when some of the islands are large enough to be countries - Ireland or Greenland, for example? (cf nomination below for Category:Churches by island). Eustachiusz (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. Buildings in Cuba do not have any substantive thing in common with buildings in Prince Edward Island and buildings in Staten Island just because all three of those entities happen to be islands, because Cuba is a sovereign country, PEI is a province and Staten Island is just a borough of a city. And furthermore, there's a surprising amount of arbitrariness about what is or isn't being catted here — for example, if multiple-island entities like the Bahamas and the Maldives and Palau and Trinidad and Tobago and the US Virgin Islands belong here, then so would New Zealand and the United Kingdom and the Philippines and Japan and Hawaii. I suspect the real difference is that the latter are home to a lot of Wikipedia contributors who would revert an attempt to add them, while the former generally aren't — it's certainly not that the Bahamas and Trinidad and Ireland have a different relationship to the concept of "island" than New Zealand and Japan and the UK and Hawaii do. Ultimately, buildings are defined by whether the geopolitical entity they're located in is a country or a province/state or a city or a borough, not by whether it happens to be island or mainland. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2017 (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:Inventions invented by people of English 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.
Nominator's rationale: Tenuously WP:DEFINING at best. And "descent" categories are always problematic - technically someone with an English 10-greats grandfather has English descent, even if it makes up <<1% of their DNA, and the sourcing tends to be difficult too. Le Deluge (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meaningless category. Half the USA could be said to be "of English descent". What has this got to do with their inventions? Rathfelder (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
chop just too many to be useful, and working out ancestors of some may be troublesome. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a natural consequence of think that people of "English descent" are notable for that tidbit, regardless of how remote or how minuscule - and assuming that one's legal parents are also one's biological ones (bastardy and adoption negate these so called "descent" categories, and methinks few have reliable sources beyond a generation or two of their genetic parentage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2017 (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:Refugees ennobled in the United Kingdom[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.
Weak keep I must admit I don't particularly like it as a category, but I'm struggling to think of a logical reason to nuke it. Looking at the likes of Dubs and Weidenfeld, that journey from refugee to the heights of the British Establishment is very much a WP:DEFINING part of their story that is much more than an intersection of categories. Dubs is the topical one, he was accorded particular authority in recent debates about immigration just because of that rare journey he had made. I'd also disagree that it's necessarily a SMALLCAT, although the existing category only has refugees from Nazi Germany there's more if you go back in history, from Huguenots and those escaping the French Revolution. Maybe tweak the name to include the likes of Henri de Massue, Earl of Galway, a Huguenot who predated the formation of the UK and was raised to the Irish peerage.Le Deluge (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to make a bit of an allowance for the evolution of language - and perhaps the ease of integration of German Jews in the 1930s meant that they are traditionally referred to as "fleeing Nazi persecution" rather than as refugees, even though that's unquestionably what they were. And for instance that phrase is found at the start of the Guardian obituary even if the Wikipedia article at present chooses to make less of a big deal of it. Although refugee is a term that goes back to the times of the Huguenots my subjective impression is that it only came into common usage in British English with the Vietnamese boat people, although I'm happy to be corrected on that. Le Deluge (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I find myself agreeing with Le Deluge on this. The category may seem narrow, but it covers a body of people that it is far from irrelevant to group together for reference. I also agree with Le Deluge's remarks on the usage of the word "refugee"; this squares with my own impression of the way the word has evolved in customary use. Peterravn (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2017 (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 23:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete anachronistic categories. The only content is Category:Ruthenian royalty (proposed to be renamed to Category:Rus' royalty) and that category should be sufficient to have. Neither Ukrainian nor Belarusian royalty have ever existed as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anachronistic.GreyShark (dibra) 07:03, 23 February 2017 (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:soft delete, merging to Russian parent too as this seems justified in the articles. – FayenaticLondon 15:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT and removing geographical unclarity in category names. Not sure if they should be merged to a Russian category as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2017 (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 23:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This cat seems to be an unthinking cross of a landform and a type of building: is there any significance to the fact that some churches are on islands, especially when some of the islands are large enough to be countries - Ireland or Greenland, for example? Eustachiusz (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining intersection. Churches are defined by the countries, provinces or states and/or cities that they're located in, not by whether or not that geographic entity happens to be an island. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have some sympathy with the original intention - as in Europe there is a definite significance to some ancient churches being founded on islands - think Iona and Lindisfarne. So I could just about live with this category if it eliminated all countries and all "big" islands like the Isle of Wight. But in reality "small islands" is probably unenforceable.... Le Deluge (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The logic indicates that if there is a category of Category:Buildings and structures by island[2], all related subcategories should also exist: such as museums, theaters, churches etc, is not that a category that is drawn out of nothing ..I do not object to it being deleted, but I want it to be understood to be created as a subcategory of a higher one.--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC) (this editor is the creator of the category in question. Eustachiusz (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
You will note that I have already nominated the parent cat Category:Buildings and structures by island for deletion above. It has no other sub-cats by building type but if there were I would nominate them for deletion as well. Eustachiusz (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that a church is on an island is trivial; what have these to do with one another? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2017 (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.
