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: Only has one entry, the college itself, plus a subcategory which has just 1 entry also. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The college will make a good main article for the alumni, but we need to ensure that is not orphaned. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of established category scheme.--TM 13:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TM: there is no established scheme of an eponymous category for every College. Such categories are routinely deleted if they fail WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 16 February 2018 (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:upmerge to the parent category, the articles in this category are unrelated to the article Mode of production and it is unsure how else we should define the inclusion criteria for this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2018 (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: Not needed this category right now. Only two pages are under this category & also there is no articles related to of Kanpur Municipal Corporation councilors. Godric ki Kothri•✉•✎ 13:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Peterkingiron. This isn't a position that would get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — both of the people here have stronger notability claims than municipal councillor per se, as one went on to serve as mayor and the other went on to serve in state government, but a person would not get a Wikipedia article just for being a municipal councillor in Kanpur in and of itself — so there's very little prospect of it being expanded enough to escape WP:SMALLCAT. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2018 (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: Unnecessary cat with no purpose. Störm(talk) 12:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless there's a valid reason to delete. Its purpose is as a topic category for Enlightened Moderation. If @Störm thinks it's un-needed, they should explain why they think so. The rationale given above is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl No relation between Pakistan movement and this recent philosophy. Why to keep then? WP:SMALLCAT with no hope of expansion. Störm(talk) 07:37, 15 February 2018 (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.
Oppose. The word holy is a concept not used much in Buddhist scholarship. Propose Buddhist observance days instead.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per the top-level articles, which use holiday. And holiday, and Category:Holidays. It's the Holy days which should be changed per almost all the usual conventions (or moved to another tree). Oculi (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(as nom) Observance sounds like a reasonable alternative, not just for Buddhism but for all religions, and surely better than holidays which imply days off from work or school which this is not about. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the article Buddhist holidays and not Buddhist holy days or Buddhist observances. All the suggested renames are contrary to the usual default rules of category names: follow the main article or the parent category. There is nothing wrong with the present set up that couldn't easily be fixed by speedy renames of the 'holy day' categories (holy day is a redirect to holiday). Oculi (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Buddhist holidays contains Buddhist festivals and observances regardless of whether they are (also) a holiday in any of the Buddhist countries, and for category content this seems perfectly fine. The article Buddhist holidays is apparently not the proper main article of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are using your own definition of holiday rather than the one given at length in holiday. If you seek to change the scope of the categories you need to start with renaming the articles. Categories follow from articles. Oculi (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2018 (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.
Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and outcome of previous discussions. Plantdrew (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2018 (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: There's no need for two categories covering the same ground. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 10 February 2018 (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.
