Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 29 December 1 >

November 30[edit]

Category:Mathematicians involved with Mathematische Annalen[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not a WP:DEFCAT for any of the entries (even Felix Klein, where it's mentioned in one unsourced paragraph among many others in the body of the article...). There is also the issue of this being a WP:SMALLCAT, with the limited scope giving it no possible potential for growth, and even extending this to include modern mathematicians associated with it is unlikely to yield many candidates where it is truly defining. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The category is inaccurate and serves no purpose. Math.Ann. was digitized by GdZ at Göttingen, with the editors listed for each volume. The de.wikipedia article on Mathematische Annalen lists all managing editors, past and present. Of those who performed the role before WWII, van der Waerden has been omitted and Bohr and Bieberbach included. I don't see any point in the category: however, copy-pasting (and verifying) the complete list of managing editors from the German article to Mathematische Annalen would be a good idea. Elmar Thoma—the Munich mathematician who studied the characters of S∞—is the only red link on de.wikipedia. The journal Deutsche Mathematik was quite different—something that was only published during the Nazi era. See also Deutsche Physik for similar material. On a related note, it appears that the nominator's "rationale" was prompted by the occurrence of Albert Einstein as an entry in this category. Mathsci (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It might be worth listifying the managing editors in the main article, but I do not think we have categories for editors of academic journals and less still for those "involved with" them. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2021 (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:Psychiatry-related fields[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. bibliomaniac15 05:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: rename and add Category:Psychiatry, the current title implies this is a "not-category" (not psychiatry) because psychiatry is a field by itself. We usually do not have "not-categories". Mental disorders is the overarching topic of the various disciplines. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Its not helpful to use the word "fields" like this.Rathfelder (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) I would not object deletion, admittedly it is a rather odd category. Mental disorders is reasonable as a subcategory of psychiatry and of clinical psychology, not so much the other way around. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete excessively subjective category altogether. I say this as a "psychiatry-related" professional (psychologist) who does not see relation to psychiatry as a defining feature of my field. Countless things are "related" to it. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category doesn't know if its referring to fields or professions. There is some utility in having these subcategories together, but I don't think this is the way to do it. Delete or maybe merge (into Category:Treatment of mental disorders, with some cleaning out of parents). --Xurizuri (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2021 (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:Wicket-keepers[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: speedy keep. withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per this deletion discussion. We don't categorise cricketers by batsman, bowler, or all-rounder, so the same consistency needs to apply to wicket-keepers too. StickyWicket (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not seeing any convincing argument for deletion in any of the previous discussions, including deletion review which reached consensus that the top level could be recreated. Being a wicketkeeper is a defining characteristic for a cricketer, much moreso than batter (technically all cricketers are batters), bowler (at some point most cricketers will be bowlers) or all-rounder (which is a largely subjective categorisation); wicketkeeper is also the only role in the team other than captain that is clearly annotated on team sheets and scorecards. Having a category seems like a perfectly useful navigational aid. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly a defining characteristic for many cricket players who are specifically known for their usual job behind the stumps (Tim Paine? MS Dhoni? Adam Gilchrist?). Like other cricket players who are specifically known for their usual [i.e. "defining"] role [and for which sub-categories would definitively help] (how would you describe Shane Warne? Stuart Broad? Jimmy Anderson? Sachin Tendulkar? Alastair Cook? Sir Don Bradman?); and like for baseball players (if, one must admit, positions there are more fixed than in cricket); this also applies to wicket-keepers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment Is it just me, or no valid deletion rationale is given (beyond a probable false equivalence which rests on an appeal to tradition, and thus invalid)? This would be a candidate for a speedy close. Linking to a previous deletion discussion of this exact category, which when appealed to DRV explicitly allowed recreation, is circular ("delete because it's been deleted in the past") and selective (because the outcome of that discussion was successfully challenged at DRV, something which is not mentioned or addressed at all in the nomination) reasoning. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this certainly seems more defining than Category:Cricketers at the 2011 Cricket World Cup. I'm not going to dig into the history enough to vote on whether to re-populate this (and presumably re-create some diffusing categories). User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the drv of 2019 October 30 specifically recreated the top category. I see that I was in the 'delete' camp at the cfd but am now persuaded that keeper is perhaps an exception (as there is only one per team). Oculi (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Defining role within a cricket team, in the same way that Category:Goalkeepers is in other sports. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the defining role discussed by others above. --Bduke (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Personally feel this is a perfectly acceptable form of categorisation, given it's been a defined position in the team. I wouldn't support categorisation such as batters or bowlers though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if kept, it should probably be populated properly, there are way more than 14 wicket-keepers to have ever played cricket. Probably an exclusive enough position that being a wicket-keeper is a defining characteristic. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's already being prepared here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- All players bat during their innings. Some are specialist bowlers and might be categorised as such. Everyone fields, but wicket keeper is a speciality. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn – seems like it's a keep. StickyWicket (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2021 (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:Power (social and political) books[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 20#Category:Power (social and political) books

Category:History of Salem[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The contents are not particularly about history. Note: If not merged, the category should be renamed to Category:History of Salem, Tamil Nadu. – Fayenatic London 11:17, 30 November 2021 (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:Firearm and weapons-related YouTube channels[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. The only article in this category is a YouTube show which only ran from 2012 to 2015 and is now defunct, so it is doubtful whether this category will have much potential for growth. feminist (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Functional delete In theory we should merge. However of the two articles, one is adequately sourced elsewhere and the other is a biography, and adequately sourced elsewhere, so in reality there is no need to merge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2021 (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:Kolpak cricketers[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. bibliomaniac15 05:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: An example of WP:OVERCAT. We don't have a category for overseas cricketers, and the Kolpak ruling no longer applies to cricket in the UK. StickyWicket (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'd agree with nom and Joseph2302 here. The term 'Kolpak' also has been inconsistently used in the past (sometimes used form UK passport holding South Africans) so I'm not sure how accurate some of those included in the category are here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most of the people in the category were Kolpak players, but that's based off my memory rather than sources (as most of the articles don't mention Kolpak at all). But unless well-sourced, they all fail WP:CATVERIFY anyway. And there's a few WI cricketers in the category who I'm sure were overseas players rather than Kolpak players (e.g. Dwayne Smith). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I remember that Brydon Carse was listed as a Kolpak and mentioned in the media as a Kolpak for a number of years despite being English qualified. Riki Wessels was in the category and he wasn't a Kolpak (may have been some years ago though). But yeah was just a passing comment. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2021 (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:Ministers of Government of Bolivia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 12#Category:Ministers of Government of Bolivia

Category:Recreation in Bosnia and Herzegovina[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. bibliomaniac15 05:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A SMALLCAT that should be empty. One subcat will be empty if the proposal below on fly-fishing deletes that category, and the other just contains results from the World Aquatics Championships. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 05:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's simply is not a fact, and even if it was, it's easily amendable.--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it wasn't, existing categories (sports, parks, tourist attractions) already cover this. Recreation is too vague to be useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2021 (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:Fly fishing in Bosnia and Herzegovina[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. bibliomaniac15 05:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The category only contains rivers, not articles about fly fishing. Spot-checking articles showed no mention of fly fishing other than the categorization. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 05:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - So, if one include few sentences, a paragraph maybe, on the topic of fly-fishing in every river-article included into category, that would, for all intents and purposes, annul your nom rational now or require cat re-creation later. Same is, then, relevant for your nomination of Category:Recreation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. By the way, at least two articles do talk about fly-fishing, one has entire sub-section dedicated to this topic (Pliva_(river)#Flyfishing; one or more has some mention of fishing and other closely related topics), and this is without any edits which I intend to preform on the subject before this discussion closes. There is also a problem with editors who add(ed) some prose on the subject of tourism and recreation in a number of articles, but forget to include these articles into the category(ies) in question or it simply does not occur to them that they (cats) exist and could and should be used. Thanks and happy holidays.--౪ Santa ౪99° 10:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a mention of fly fishing does not make it a defining characteristic of a river. For mentions we have the "what links here" option. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what in the world is more defining for a certain kind of river (say, 5 kilometres long fly fishing-famous Ribnik (curently under construction)) than its wild life and ecology, and how you use and manage it; if your main economic gain comes from protection and tourism and on the menu is primarily fly fishing and rafting? (Additional info is now provided on a number of articles.)--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wild life, ecology and tourism are infinitely broad topics and a single aspect of that is infinitely narrow. Would we put all rivers in every category of plants and animals that live in or alongside the shores of the river, or every sport that is ever being done in or on the river? I think not. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2021 (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:Recreation in Jacksonville, Florida[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. bibliomaniac15 05:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and not used for other cities. The parks are under "Geography", the events under "Culture", and the sports venues under "Sports" subcats that already exist. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:59, 30 November 2021 (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:Berkeley Macintosh Users Group members[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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't think membership in a computer user group is defining but perhaps you'll disagree. I thought I'd initiate a discussion about it. Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While it's very difficult for me to imagine that playing ball games could be a defining characteristic of an adult person, there are, nonetheless, people for whom it's very important, and who have even made careers of it. Likewise, computer users groups are central to a lot of people's definitions of their identity, and those who can, have made careers of it. I think it's fair to say that any organized, communal activity that brings otherwise-unrelated people together voluntarily for 40+ hours per week, is a defining activity. More so than, for instance, their profession, or any unchosen marker like ethnicity or nationality, which this transcends. The people tagged thus far are, by definition, already notable for other reasons, so this may seem minor in comparison. But I think this New York Times article, or this one, both of which call out BMUG specifically, helps capture the gravity and centrality with which members of this community regard it. You might also take a look at the career of Ellen Leanse, who built a career and whole organizations just to manage corporate interaction with this community. She, too, makes special mention of BMUG, and BCS-Mac, the two largest computer user groups in the world. So, while this sphere of human interaction may not have intersected yours, it has indeed been definitionally important to millions of people over the past sixty years. I know people who are third-generation computer user group members. While this particular user group went bankrupt as a business entity twenty years ago, its members still meet. Also, isn't anything that brings together as equals heads of state and serial killers (outside the meeting-rooms of Blackwater), tech billionaires and homeless people, kinda an interesting characteristic in its own right? Bill Woodcock (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editing to add to the above, after having read a bunch of the past debate over what constitutes a "defining attribute." I have the same name as my father. We both lived in the same town for most of our lives, on the same street. We have the same nationality, voted for and donated to the same party, and spoke the same mother tongue. We were both members of many of the same organizations and participated in many of the same activities. But our year of birth is different, our place of birth is different, and I was a member of BMUG, while he was not. So I put forward the proposition that, for me, membership in this organization is a "defining attribute" in the second sense: "a fundamental detail of biographical data which assists in identifying the person through the usual records (e.g. nationality, year of birth and death)." The argument over whether a category has to be defining for everyone in it, or just for some people in it has been thoroughly put to bed. Though if anyone really wants to re-open it, I guess it can be litigated again. Bill Woodcock (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have endeavored to make that as clear as possible. I, like 13,000 other people, was a member of the organization. Was there some ambiguity? Also, you appear to be trying to have it both ways... Here you say you're discussing the article, not the category; below, you say you're discussing the category not the article, and pretend to have no knowledge of the substance. Can you explain your goal or rationale here? I've made a good-faith effort at dialog, while you are, thus far, just casting aspersions. If you have an argument to make, please present it. Bill Woodcock (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Really? I used a standard template to note that you have a clear conflict of interest - that of course applies to both the article Berkeley Macintosh Users Group and the category. And I'm not saying the article should be deleted. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so, please proceed and present your argument. Or refute mine. You assert that I have a "clear conflict of interest." Please support that assertion with information or an argument. What conflict do you believe exists with respect to the existence of the category? What tangible benefit do you believe that I derive from the existence of this category? And with respect to the article, I believe that I was following Wikipedia policy on "supplying photographs and media files". If you disagree with that policy, or believe that I have not followed it, please present your reasoning. I am happy to revise my position or understanding based upon new information or persuasive argument, but argument by assertion is neither of those. Bill Woodcock (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while it's possible a Bay Area group like this could have been influential enough for membership to be a defining characteristic, I don't see the evidence. None of the 7 articles in the category mention the group in the article text. Bill Woodcock's argument may suggest an article is needed on the group, but not a category for its members. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is something that's really important to a lot of people, as a membership organization, not as a curiosity or an abstract existing in a vacuum. Lots of words have been expended in print by mainstream journalists, and nearly every discussion of BMUG centers on its membership. It was its members, the staff were a tiny nucleus, less than a tenth of a percent of the organization. I have no idea why anyone would want to elide the most important thing about the organization and movement. EVhotrodder (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. @力: What bay are you trying to casting shade on, Boston Bay, Tokyo Bay, the San Francisco Bay? It was always a global organization, not the minor local phenomenon you're trying to misrepresent it as. I was a BMUG member, and if I were notable enough to have a page, I'd certainly want that fact known. I think you're falling prey to a form of observer bias: being a member of a user group doesn't make someone notable, so people who are notable have articles about them which focus on the topics which made them notable; definitionally not being a BMUG member, since there were many thousands of BMUG members. And it doesn't reduce in the slightest the degree to which BMUG membership was a defining characteristic for thousands of people. It's just not what Wikipedia editors choose to focus on in articles about people who are notable for other reasons. So that argument is a straw-man. BurritoTunnelMaintenance (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is not a characteristic that external sources focus on, e.g. [1] does not mention it at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Google search finds 55,000 results for "Berkeley Macintosh Users Group" OR "BMUG", and of those, 31,600 also discuss "member" OR "members" OR "membership". And here are a few examples of articles about people, which discuss their BMUG membership as a defining characteristic:
A single example of an article for which the category is not defining does not invalidate a category when there exist examples for which it is defining. Bill Woodcock (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BMUG's history provides a window into the development of Apple, and the how developer and user communities advance computer use, company formation, and cultural change. Is the long game here to set a precedent that would support deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Computer_Club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.184.134.187 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I didn't see the value in this category, hence why I nominated it, I really appreciate the thoughtful discussion that this nomination has started. So, typically, I see CFD nominations and below them a series of "Deletes" and "Keeps" with Wikipedia policy alphabet jargon. I'm grateful for those of you who helped explain, at least to me, the significance of this group to its members. Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Thanks. I don't have any particular fondness for categories, but this did cause me to spend some time thinking about what I find valuable about them in Wikipedia and how I use them. Typically, when I've read an article I find interesting and want to further explore related subjects, I look at the categories the article has been tagged with, choose one that seems like it describes the direction I want to know more about, then go to the category page and look at other articles in that category. Like, hypothetically, I would expect a category "Wildflowers of the Rocky Mountains" to contain other interesting wildflowers of the Rocky Mountains, which might also interest me, if one had interested me. Likewise, if I saw that someone had died in the Jonestown Massacre, I might want to back-track to the category of "Victims of the Jonestown Massacre" to see if there were any other notable people who died there, which, in turn, would give me a sense of the scope and character of the incident. So, as a reader, I actually use categories a lot and find them very valuable, and have occasionally added relevant categories to articles, though this is the first time in fifteen years of Wikipedia-editing that I've tried actually created a new category.
Also, I found WP:NOTDUP to be cogent and useful thinking on the topic. Different readers come at things in different ways and have different styles of research. Wikipedia's content is a significant part of its value, but the interconnections which allow users to find relevant content are at least as valuable, and completely complementary. More than that, actually. Without both, neither has any value. So, I think in the wake of reading WP:NOTDUP, which I found to be a very compelling argument, I might view categories as even more valuable than I did before. Because what's important is not whether I find a specific category to be a valuable indexing tool, but whether anyone benefits from it. Which echoes the conclusion that categories don't need to be defining for every member, but only for some members to qualify as defining attributes. Bill Woodcock (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2021 (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:Emilia Zoryan[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: speedy close. The nominated category does not exist and this is likely intended as a WP:RM discussion (i.e. wrong forum). (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Based on this actress and authors interviews and http://www.imdb.me/emiliaares she works and is credited under the name Emilia Ares. Memazor (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close. Wrong forum as no such category exists. I assume this was intended as an WP:RM. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:52, 30 November 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_30&oldid=1073193208"