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: Is there any rationale for making a category more specific than "Star Wars characters"? It seems like an overly specific category than is unnecessary. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or perhaps just merge with the parent Category:Star Wars characters. The Emperor isn't in here, despite being the ultimate revolutionary (overthrowing the Republic and replacing it with an Empire ruled by himself), so either it's badly set up, or the scope is improperly defined, which is another problem on top of having an unnecessary and overly specific category. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category was created today by an editor who has previously created similar in-universe categories related to Jedi etc. Are there any grounds for a speedy delete? If I'd caught this earlier I would have boldly reverted all of his changes to the related articles.— TAnthonyTalk 01:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should note for the sake of this discussion: this category is completely in-universe. The parent SW character category is not so overpopulated that it needs to be filtered using subcategories, and even if it did, we would categorize by works of origin or another real-world perspective.— TAnthonyTalk 14:28, 21 July 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: empty Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 20 July 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:merge all. – FayenaticLondon 13:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly single-article categories, incidentally two or more. No need to merge to year categories, all articles are already in a continental or country year category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all -- no need for individual categories. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In principal Upmerge all -- I reply on nom that all articles already have a year category in some way, and so do not need a wider upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 22 July 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.
KEEP – It is a notable achievement. And if it's well sourced, there should not be an issue. Not much different than saying someone won any other type of award or "title". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCAWARD and per the categ's creator @Joseph A. Spadaro. Per WP:OCAWARD, award categories should exist only in exceptional cases; but the creator helpfully reminds us that there is nothing exceptional about this one. I would go further: a salutatorian is less significant than most awards, because it is simply one of several graduation speech-makers every year in any university. We don't categorise people by what type of degree they won, and this is much less WP:DEFINING than that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we don't categorise people for being first in their class, we definitely don't need to categorise people for being second in their class. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will also be starting a "Valedictorian" category. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non defining for any of the recipients. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OCAWARD. If this applied to a small number of universities, I might just have considered keeping it, but the list in the main article indicates that it applies to High School graduation, where getting the second highest marks is distinctly not very notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 22 July 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. Timrollpickering 11:46, 3 August 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:Office buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in Manhattan[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:keep. – FayenaticLondon 13:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename and rescope - until we have such a category on the New York City level, we certainly don't need it on the Manhattan level. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have created the appropriate category at the NYC level and populated it; there are members outside Manhattan. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the 2 you added to the state category, there aren't enough to require this level of splitting the city's category. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that leads to the question of whether Manhattan should be split out from the rest of NYC anywhere. Care to propose an overall merger? Mangoe (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep no valid reason for renaming. And the nominator could have created the necessary category instead of coming here. Hmains (talk) 02:52, 21 July 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:Mergenthaler Linotype Company typefaces[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 11:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates the "Linotype typefaces" category. Already tagged for speedy deletion by the category's creator (who hasn't edited since), I suspect for this reason. Rowan03 (talk) 10:57, 20 July 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.
Keep pending the presentation of a valid reason to delete. —swpbT 13:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP. I am open to the possibility that there may be a valid reason to delete, but the nominator has not provided one. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We often have both a category and a list: the serve different purposes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 22 July 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.
Keep pending the presentation of a valid reason to delete. —swpbT 13:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP. I am open to the possibility that there may be a valid reason to delete, but the nominator has not provided one. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We often have both a category and a list: the serve different purposes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 22 July 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: Empty. Only entry was also in Sri Lankan disability rights activists which is part of an established system Rathfelder (talk) 09:59, 20 July 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. Timrollpickering 11:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- not enough content, nor is more likely for an ancient history subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 22 July 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:Olivet College Athletic Hall of Fame Inductees[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: Induction into this minor hall of fame is not a defining characteristic worthy of categorization. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not defining. Rikster2 (talk) 21:28, 26 July 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.
