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: 'Speedy delete per WP:G7, i.e. creator requests deletion. or blanks page. Creator Alligators1974 expressed support for deletion, below. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect naming of the category aside (should really be "Fictional characters who drown" or "Fictional characters who die by drowning"), the categorisation of fictional characters by their cause of death is surely a WP:TRIVIALCAT. anemoneprojectors 21:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have a death in fiction category anyway.--5 albert square (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah I agree it's pointless. Alligators1974 (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I could see the use for such a category, did you notice that it is empty? Dimadick (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it wasn't empty when I nominated it, it contained the article Ronnie Mitchell and I expected the creator was going to add others, especially Roxy Mitchell, but this didn't happen. The article was then removed, probably because the person who did it agreed with this deletion. anemoneprojectors 16:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAlligators1974 is the creator of the category and has agreed with its deletion - is this now a speedy deletion? anemoneprojectors 16:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is non-defining to fictional characters, especially since some either a-mange to come back from death or b-manage to have different modes of death in different incarnations of the same character, either in different media forms (TV, books, etc) or in different versions in the same media.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Method of death is not defining for a fictional character, especially in the era when fictional characters are so commonly retconned into alternate timelines or adopted into new reimaginings of the original story or postmodernistically recontexualized into completely different stories. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 5 January 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:Publications about the Greek economy[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:rename per actual content. The Greek economy just by itself probably wouldn't be interesting enough to write books about. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per actual contents. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they are two different things. There are plenty of academic books on the Greek economy; if they have received more than one review in an academic journal then they are notable per WP:NB. This category has plenty of growth potential. Furius (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both books are about the role of the Greek economy in the Eurozone crisis. We currently only have categories on books about the economies of India Category:Books about the economy of India and of Greece (i.e. of the Eurozone), and in general regional economics is a less important subdiscipline within economics, so the growth potential for a small country like Greece seems to be very limited. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator). I thought that there was an unwritten rule/common practice that country-specific categories are protected from deletion out of respect for (all) the countries of the world; even if there is not such an unwritten rule I believe there should be one (regardless of the degree of the population of the categories). Irrespective of that I think that due to the recent Greek economic crisis Greece is suitable for the existence of a category with this theme. Also I hope similar categories will be created for other countries too and be populated; I wonder why that has not happened so far at least for the big world economies.SoSivr (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not surprising at all that we don't have books about the big world economies, it's because Regional economics is a less developed subdiscipline within Economics. Note that Category:Regional economics contains only 16 articles and we do not even have a Category:Regional economists, just to illustrate this point. There are quite a number of books on the economy of India, but that may be the case because India is a country of interest to Development economics, which is another and more developed subdiscipline within Economics. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About 2/3 of all the economic books we have could & probably should be moved to an American category like this, but we don't of course have one, because America is not a region, but the world. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least merging is an improvement compared to what we currently have. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 8 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: category is empty and has evidently been superseded by Category:Sports events by month, which contains all of the "planned subcategories". Jack | talk page 12:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was an out of process emptying by an IP, but I have no problem with the change. SFB 13:57, 2 January 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.
So this nomination is just bringing sportspeople in line with the established convention. Editors who find this offensive should start a new discussion to see if there is consensus to move Category:Irish people. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can sort of understand why that category was created, but for Wikipedia purposes there's no distinction between "Sportspeople from Ireland" and "Irish sportspeople" so the category tree should be followed. ¡Bozzio! 15:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the nominator knows, there is a long established convention that for every category that exists in the Republic of Ireland, a mirror exists for the whole island of Ireland. The latter allows for a child category for Northern Ireland. The same is true for this nom which has the usual children: Category:Sportspeople from Northern Ireland and Category:Sportspeople from the Republic of Ireland. A merger would leave them orphans. The nominator also knows that many people from Northern Ireland would self identify as British, not Irish so that the proposed nationality target might be offensive to them. If this nom is succesfull,it could unravel this convention of long standing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about George Best? If nationality is the only tree structure available, then he sits happily in Category:British sportspeople by location but perhaps not quite so happily in Category:Irish sportspeople. Would George have self identified as Irish? No such speculation is necessary when you have a geography tree structure. George is in both Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland, without dispute. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LL, there is no "by location" structure to parallel the nationality structure. If you think there should be one, that's a wider question, but this is not the place to pursue. I suggest an RFC if you want to explore that one. As to George Best, he is in a Northern Ireland category ... which like all other Northern Irish categories is parented in both British and Irish categories. Again, if you want to unpick that, I suggest an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)#[reply]
BHG, it is not true to say that "there is no "by location" structure". There is the "British sportspeople by location" structure that I pointed out above. There is also the "by city" and the "by county" structures. Crucially, in the case of George Best, he is in the Category:Sportspeople from Belfast - the "from" preposition is all important. From this, he can be slotted into Northern Ireland and into Ireland. As a geographic indicator, this works. Had it been "Fooian" like Category:Irish sportspeople from Belfast, it would not work. This proves the need for a geographic indicator. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LL, if you look at Category:British sportspeople by location, you will see that it was created by me as a container for a particular set of sub-cats of British sportspeople. Every one of those subcats is also a subcat of Category:British people, as are the city and county categories. THis is all really quite simple:
Northern Ireland is a special case, as a region/nation/whatever which is categorised as if it were part of two separate countries. That's consequence of the Good Friday Agreement's recognition of dual identity. The result is that every person in or from Northern Ireland is a categorised under both Category:Irish people and Category:British people. So Martin McGuinness is British+Irish and Johnny Adair is British+Irish. That's not a bug; it's an intentional design choice. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of which goes to say that RoI/NI/I are special cases and that this category should be kept. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LL, you appear to have entirely misunderstood what I wrote above. So I'll make it shorter: The concepts of nationality and "from place" are inextricably interlinked in en.wp categories. This Category:Sportspeople from Ireland does nothing to separate them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, it is not true to say that the concepts of nationality and "from place" are inextricably interlinked in en.wp categories. History comes into it. First century Christian saints are from Pontus, not from Turkey. They are not Turkish nationals, even though the space in which they were born lies in modern Turkey. The same goes for the former entities with the Holy Roman Empire. Franz Liszt was from Hungary, he was not a national of the Holy Roman Empire or a Category:Holy Roman Empireish composer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I may interrupt between the two of you, I think the last part of the discussion is a little bit distracting. The original point of discussion was whether or not subcategories of the nominated category would become orphaned by the merger. That is certainly not the case, so no data is lost by this merger. Also, after this merger, we still keep a distinction between all-Irish categories, ROI categories and Northern Irish categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on the basis the population of the island of Ireland can identify as Irish or British, depending on whether they are from the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland (or Protestant or Catholic, or depending on when they were born, in some circumstances). To merge these categories would ignore geographical and political reality, as far as I can see. Though a few of the sub-categories may need a bit of tweaking/untangling. Sionk (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to BrownHairedGirl. Rather than make a grand address to the closing admin (as if your voice counts more than anyone else) I'll speak to you directly. I'm not claiming anything will be orphaned (you evidently didn't read my comment above). The category you are trying to delete is a valid category. Ireland is a geographical and political entity. Laurel Lodged (though I'm sure they can speak for themselves) begins with the point that 'ireland' categories are established conventions. To begin a process of deletion of them, in my view, would come across as unproductive and possibly politically motivated. Sionk (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: please retract that ridiculous and unfounded allegation of some political motivation. This merger has no political effect or implication, so that suggestion is as absurd as it is offensive. (Having spent hundreds of hours over the past decade in trying to ensure that we have a politically-neutral system of geographical categorisation in Ireland, I am annoyed that you resorted to that that cheap slur rather than taking the time to examine how this merger could have any of the effects you falsely claim it has).
Look at the category hierarchy here. As a general picture, we have
Now, this Category:Sportspeople from Ireland is an all-Ireland container for a few categories of sportspeople, all of which are also subcats of the all-Ireland Category:Irish sportspeople. It has the same set of parents as Category:Irish sportspeople. It is therefore an un-needed duplicate. The proposal here is to merge it to a long pre-existing all-Ireland category (Category:Sportspeople from Ireland) with identical scope and with the same parents and which conforms to the naming convention. That's why you are wrong to claim that this is a valid category -- it is misnamed duplicate. That makes it an invalid category. And this is not the start of any process of deleting Ireland categories (of which I have created hundreds). It is simply a one-off merger of a misnamed category which duplicates a properly-named category. I did read your comment above, and like LL you completely miss the point about this category -- which is that its merger will not in any way affect the things you are concerned about. It's because neither you nor LL are able in any way to demonstrate how this merger will have the effects you achieve, and refuse to acknowledge the identical scope and parenting of the two categories, that I invite the closer to carefully scrutinise your arguments. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re "ridiculous and unfounded" Laurel Lodged has actually made the point very well (below). Not everyone on the island of Ireland identifies as "Irish", primarily because of the century old issue of the division of Ireland. That is what makes it potentially 'political', whether that was your intention or not. It's an easy thing to try and impose, a simple cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all approach to categorisation and, unfortunately, there are many one-size-fits-all contirbutors at CfD who'll look at this proposal superficially and support it. But removal of Category:Sportspeople from Ireland may be used as precedent by others to remove other "...from Ireland" categories. If anything, the discussion needs to be had at a more general level. Sionk (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to BHG I rather think that it is you who is in denial that it is not a duplicate. It is you who who conflates geography (a verifiable, objective fact) with nationality (not quite as verifiable, liable to change and often quite subjective). I will therefore demonstrate once again how the two differ. George Best is diffused to the lowest level of the tree, namely Category:Sportspeople from Belfast, which is a legitimate child of Category:Sportspeople by city or town in Northern Ireland] which in turn is a legitimate child of Category:Sportspeople from Northern Ireland which in turn is a child of the current proposal Category:Sportspeople from Ireland. The problem comes with a potentially incorrect association of the geographic category (Category:Sportspeople from Northern Ireland) with two nationality categories: Category:British sportspeople by location and Category:Irish sportspeople. It's difficult to see how one person could have dual nationalities without also having dual personality problems. I have never seen George Best self identify as anything other than British. So to force him into an Irish nationality category would be wrong. This error can be corrected by maintaining the current structure and leaving the nationality structure as an independent struct that is not dependent on other structures. That is, do not conflate geography with nationality. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Laurel Lodged: you are now being ridiculous and tendentious. Please stop and read rather than endlessly parroting the same fallacies. For the umpteenth time, At the national level, en.wp categories do not distinguish between between "from a country" and "of a country". They deliberately conflate geography and nationality, by design. That's why for every nation on earth, the "Category:Fooish people" contains "people from" categories for sub-national divisions. The difference is not in any way semantic. It is purely terminological, because most sub-national divisions do not have a widely-understood demonym, so the adjectival form is unusable for cities. That's why we do not have Category:Belfastish people or Category:Mayoish people, and why the city demonyms were renamed at CFD in back in 2006. The "problem" which you falsely claim with regard to Category:Sportspeople from Belfast is not a problem -- it is a design feature of the whole categorisation for system. The system treats Category:Ireland and Category:Irish people as all-Ireland categories, with subcats for the two jurisdictions on the island. So every topic in the island of Ireland comes under Category:Ireland and every person comes under Category:Irish people. Category:Sportspeople from Belfast comes under Category:Irish people in several ways -- one of which is that its parent Category:People from Belfast comes under Category:Irish people. So regardless if how you parent your Category:Sportspeople from Ireland, your pointless duplicate category does not alter the fact that Category:Sportspeople from Belfast comes under Category:Irish people. And as as the final piece de resistance of your folly-fest here, please note that Laurel Lodged placed Category:Sportspeople from Ireland as a parent of Category:Irish sportspeople (see current version and last version edited by LL), which is a sub-cat of Category:Irish people. So by Laurel Lodged's own design, this category perpetuates the non-problem which Laurel Lodged claims to want to eliminate. Now, please stop wasting other people's time by flogging the dead horse of your inability (or refusal) to understand either the category system as a whole or the effects of your own increasingly-disruptive category creations. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I've got BHG's position straight. At the risk of a W:SYN accusation, she seems to be asserting that
"en.wp categories do not distinguish between "from a country" and "of a country". and also that
en.wp categories do distinguish between "in a country" (e.g. "in Ireland") and "from a country" (e.g. "from Ireland"). The example supplied was a Brazilian fooballer who played for a season in Ireland.
So "from a country" = "of a country", but "in a country" ≠ "from a country". So where does that leave us regarding "of a country" and "from a country"? They are, by BHG logic, not equal. What a surprising conclusion that would be. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LL, stop disrupting CFD with this off-topic FUD. CFD is a place for reasoned discussion to reakch a consensus, not for your attempts at point-scoring. In this case, the "in a country" categories are clearly neither "of a country" nor "from a country". That's the whole point of them ... but it is irrelevant to fact that the nominated Category:Sportspeople from Ireland is a duplicate of Category:Irish sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Discussions" with BHG always guarantee an amusing ramble in "I'm Not Hearing You" land. Overall, I conclude that @Marcocapelle: has the most sensible solution. For football in Ireland, we should ignore nationalty / citizenship altogether and leave it at the level of club / national team participation without making any inferences as to the political allegiances of the player. LL out. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the most sensible, thanks, but I guess it will be nearly impossible to delete or transform all nationality-occupation intersection categories like that. We just have to live with them for now, and I agree with User:BrownHairedGirl that the nominated and target category are both nationality-based hence duplicates in purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LL, I hear you loud and clear. The problem is that you are a) wrong about most of your assertions, b) unable or unwilling to understand that you are wrong, c) determined to drag discussion off-topic. The discussion about whether to categorise sportspeople by nationality is irrelevant to the decision on whether to merge these two categories. Please take it elsewhere, and stop disrupting this CFD. And none of this is about political allegiances. It is about nationality. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By saying that, you demonstrate you clearly don't understand (or refuse to understand) the politics of Ireland. I could equally shout at you that you are wrong (as you have repeatedly to Laurel Lodged) but that doesn't move things forward. We disagree, and that is the porpose of CfD, to politely consider the issues without losing our tempers.
Nationality is "Irish" or "British". Ireland is an island in the north Atlantic. That is exactly the topic of this discussion, whether you want it to be or not. You can't shoe-horn every category into a simple one-size-fits-all solution. There are Irish abd British people living on Ireland.
Out of interest, I had a look at Category:Cypriot people, where another island has been partitioned between different countries. While it seems to work perfectly well as a suitable umbrella for Category:Turkish Cypriot people and Category:Greek Cypriot people the political and national allegiances seem to operate differently from Ireland, so though it shows an umbrella category works perfectly well for a geographical island, it doesn't fit perfectly with the Ireland issues.
But overall I'd ask you to accept that people disagree with you and shouting, calling people "ridiculous", talking "blatant nonsense" etc. isn't going to move anything forward. Try for one moment to understand the other point of view. I also stand by the assertion that "People from Ireland" and "Irish" aren't the same thing. Sionk (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: Not at all. I understand your point of view very well; the problem is that you demonstrate very little understanding of the category structure within which this operates. It would help considerably if you made some effort to engage with that. I quite agree that "Fooish" and "From Foo" do not always means the same thing, and I am more than familiar enough with the politics of Ireland to understand that the distinction may carry political significance. However, nationality always carries political meaning in any nation, and the concerns about political effect apply to any demonymic category. That's why I continue to assert that this is about nationality, not politics; there is no direct political labelling here. The crucial point, which you and LL repeatedly overlook, is that the whole of the category system relating to Ireland makes no attempt to distinguish been "Fooish" and "from Foo", and an attempt to patch such a distinction into the existing structure is self-defeating. You and LL repeatedly disregard the fact that is that this is not some abstract theorisation about the concepts; it is a discussion about Wikipedia categories, which do not distinguish between the two meanings ... and in particular about one Wikipedia categories, which exists within a broader structure whose nature you persistently misundestand. Now to your "demonstration", which is either foolish or wilfully misleading, because it is incomplete. The factors you omit are that: a) everyCategory:Fooers from Northern Ireland is by design a subcat of both Category:British fooers and Category:Irish fooers, so sportspeople are no exception. That renders the concerns about mislabelling people's nationality utterly pointless, because placing any item in a Northern Ireland category automatically puts it in numerous subcats of both Irish and British people. and b) The nominated category Category:Sportspeople from Ireland does not in any way achieve any of the aims which you claim to seek, because it has the same parents as Category:Irish sportspeople. That's why it is a duplicate: it does exactly the same job. If you and/or LL want some sort of categorisation for people connected with this island which does distinguish between "Fooish" and "From Foo", then that is a much wider proposition which would require an RFC (and possibly a series of RFCs). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you do understand my argument (or that originally raised by LL, before it was sidetracked to "Foo-ish v. From Foo"). "People from Ireland" should be a top level category (mirroring "Irish people") and not a sub-category of "Irish people" because several hundred thousand of the population of Northern Ireland identify as "British". Northern Ireland is part of the UK. "Sportspeople from Ireland" shouldn't even be a subcategory of "Irish sportspeople". Not every category neatly fits the easy 'one size fits all' and the "People from Ireland" tree is one of them, in my view. Sionk (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as a container-only category or merge with Category:Irish sportspeople (or reverse merge). We do not need both. As a matter of principle, we expect Ireland categories to be split into the Republic and the North, except:
Pre-partition issues
As a container-only category for the whole island
Subject that operate on an all-Ireland basis post-partition. This applies to horse-racing and Gaelic sports, but the category should have no articles (except perhaps lists), as the articles ought to be under the individual sports. At present, Category:Irish sportspeople has one article - on a Fives player, and that probably needs moving to something more specific. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Peterkingiron: what would the point of keeping a duplicate category? As I explained repeatedly above, LL's new category has the same parents as Category:Irish sportspeople, and a subset of its contents. That's a pointless duplicate.
And like Category:Irish people and allCategory:Irish fooers, Category:Irish sportspeopleis a container for the whole island, with subcats for Northern Ireland as appropriate. If editors wan t to do a major restructuring of all the thousands of Irish people categories, then that deserves an RFC -- not just plucking one category out of the tree and non-standardising it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My take-away from User:Peterkingiron's contribution is that he doesn't oppose the nominated merge - explicitly saying: "We do not need both". Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I purposely provided multiple alternatives. Irish people suggests nationality; people from is purposely vague and could cover a French Rugby people employed by an Irish team, but that is a fine distinction and perhaps not useful. I was trying to leave open whether we had both. My point was that Irish categories should not contain articles, except in the three cases I cited. They should normally be split into RoI and NI. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So "Keep" means "Keep" then. But with conditions (no articles contained). Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the nominated category nor the target category are supposed to contain articles. Both are split in RoI and NI. So User:Peterkingiron's conditions are met in either scenario. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A model of clarify and reasonableness, as always @Marcocapelle:. And to think that that can be achieved without resorting to shouting, calling people "ridiculous", talking "blatant nonsense". Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:02, 26 January 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. Cerebellum (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per long-standing CFD precedent for such awards. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The award is n9ot defining to those who receive it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 5 January 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:Recipients of the Nishan-e-Pakistan[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. Cerebellum (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Background We deleted medals given to foreign officials by Venezuela and Afghanistan here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per long-standing CFD precedent for such awards. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This represents category clutter. I counted I think 41 recognition award categories for Eisenhower that we just plain do not need. That would still leave the article in about 50 categories, which seems excessive, but not as bad as the current 90.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Nominator's rationale is flawed and misleading. The Nishan-e-Pakistan is the highest of civil awards and decorations given by the Government of Pakistan for the highest degree of service to the country and nation of Pakistan. We already have examples like, Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients and Category:Recipients of the Bharat Ratna, therefore deletion of this Category would amount to systemic bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.238.233 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely remember there was once a local consensus that every country was entitled to have a category for its highest civil award. That is probably what the previous comment is referring to. I'm not sure though if that is really in line with WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 12 January 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.
