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. Mr. Guye, please do not nominate for deletion where merger is required. – FayenaticLondon 13:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sole member is {{Types of crime}}, which has the same purpose as the category. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 10 November 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.
Category:Independent film production companies of the Philippines[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 as WP:SOFTDELETE due to lack of participation. – FayenaticLondon 13:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nothing to explain why these 4 companies are more independent than other film production companies. 2 of them are actually divisions of Star Cinema, so they aren't independent. No other categories of independent film production companies. Rathfelder (talk) 17:54, 10 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. – FayenaticLondon 12:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oculi (talk) 11:40, 20 November 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: Small group with no potential for growth, per WP:SMALL. The group name is literally an acronym of the three group members. 83.248.186.87 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1 is too few, 2 is borderline but 3 is fine. Oculi (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. No different than any other three-member band, hundreds of which have categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:12, 11 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus. Timrollpickering 21:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These articles are mostly about blogs. It's stretching the term to call them journalism organizations. There is no article on Alternative journalism, and it's an unsatisfactory category because it assumes the existence of an undefined mainstream. Not many of them say anything about being an alternative. More use the term progressive. Rathfelder (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or purge. It's true that this is now mostly collecting blogs, but that wasn't its original intent — that derives from followup misuse. The original idea was for things that actually are organizations, such as Cartoon Movement and Hacktivist News Service and Inter Press Service: the content distribution and syndication agencies that serve alternative media outlets, rather than the alternative media outlets themselves. The misuse may indeed suggest that this should be rethought, but it's basically one of those "okay, it seemed like a good idea at the time" sort of things. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Merge, Very concerned about the removals by Marcocapelle from at least some articles without replacement by suitable alternative category. At a quick glance a possibly not good situation has been made worse and could be interpreted as politically biased.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am motivated because on a couple of articles on my watchlist categories were removed re-biases the overall category set further towards left-wing political association and removal of the news aspects of the article topics. The timing of this is chosen by someone other than me. As this can be interpreted as a pre-emptive move prior to consensus of this proposal and as information is being lost then a Don't Merge stop is appropriate. If the merge when ahead then the sites I have mentioned would have gone into alternative media, which may have been reasonable acceptable. Beginning to look around this categorization area (and just about being to understand the way digital publications are specifically defined for example) there may be some weaknesses in the online-only publications categorization area. I'd also note a lack of descriptions in the categories as suggest per WP:CAT to ensure the criteria for category conclusion is explicitly defined. So my motivation is hold on and look holistically at a reasonable way forward. In the meanwhile I remain concerned the removal of articles from this category while the discussion is ongoing may not be helpful in determining root cause issues. Overall there is probably a missing category somewhere as far as I can tell … I think Rwendland below may have put this better. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Merge, possibly rename to something like "Category:Alternative online media". There is already sub-cats of "Category:Alternative media" like Category:Alternative press and Category:Alternative radio, and I think it is logical to have another parallel sub-cat for websites/online. Looks like "Category:Alternative journalism organizations" was co-opted to serve this function even though not originally intended for that. There seems a need for such a sub-cat, and finding a good name seems to be the issue we should be addressing. Rwendland (talk) 19:06, 24 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. This close is no bar to re-nominating the category e.g. for renaming and purging if appropriate. – FayenaticLondon 13:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete, the articles in this category are unrelated to the former Kamarupa kingdom. The vast amount of articles are about villages which are already in Category:Villages in Kamrup district. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Kamrup/Kamarupa is ancient/ modern region and kingdom (3-12 C.E.). The current Kamrup district is divided from 1983 onwards, thus its scope is limited.भास्कर् BhagawatiSpeak 13:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usually we have populated places categories only diffused by administrative districts, not by historical regions. At the very least, if kept, we should rename the category to Category:Kamrup region per article Kamrup region and the parent categories should be changed accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 10 November 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.
The result of the discussion was:WP:SOFTDELETE until there are more pages to be added. – FayenaticLondon 13:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains an eponymous article. None of the rulers mentioned in the article have an article on their own. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This only has a main article, but that article has a lot of redlinks for potential articles. This means that the category could be populated by providing place-holders for those bio-articles. If so, the question is whether the people redlinked are in fact notable: I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Category should be kept and expanded rather than deleted. Main article covers a monarchy spanning 250 years. Subject currently underrepresented. —C M B J 00:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the above comments should be resolved in article space. If and only if someone is writing these articles it makes sense to keep or recreate the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's very likely that some related articles were prematurely purged just the same, because I can tell you that I would not create a one-page category. If I have an opportunity to fill in another article or two I will, but this content deficit should be taken up at one of the relevant WikiProjects instead of XfD. —C M B J
The best hypothesis I can come up with (given the many redlinks in the main article) is that some rulers of this dynasty once had an article which meanwhile have been deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 17 November 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.
