Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 2 June 4 >

June 3[edit]

Category:Film series based on Valiant Comics[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, but with permission to re-create at the nominator's target name if there are more entries to go in it. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of these are films series, just films. ★Trekker (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the merger suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. There are no film series based on Valiant Comics. Dimadick (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Marcocapelle. ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:31, 3 July 2022 (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:Investigations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#Category:Investigations

Category:Amarna greeting letters[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) Qwerfjkltalk 15:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the category is based on a trivial characteristic. By the way, Amarna letters does not mention "greeting letters" at all as a separate class of letters. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2022 (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.

Amarna letters by location[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 all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, unnecessary micro-categorization with tiny and awkwardly-named subcategories. Besides the Amarna letters are numbered so when you are interested to read the most similar letters, just take the ones with adjacent numbers. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2022 (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:Morning Again[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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories with only the subcategory of each band's members. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:47, 3 June 2022 (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:Historical letters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#Category:Historical letters

Category:Pseudoastronomers[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) Qwerfjkltalk 15:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While grouping proponents of astronomy-related pseudoscience is a coherent idea, I cannot find adequate attestation to this neologism. Also, the new name would match other subcategories of Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:NEOLOGISM. I can find few reliable examples of any iteration of the term pseudoastromy/-er (with or without a hyphen) and none appear commonly or consistently applied to a single person. The profusion of "pseudo-x" or "pseudoscientific X" categories applied in a fashion disproportionate to their usage in reliable sources should be seriously scrutinized. That a lone scientist operates a blog called "Pseudo Astronomy" does not mean that the term "pseudoastronomer" is commonly and consistently used to describe any of the persons. Junk science and junk scientists (or pseudoscientists) can still be categorized as such if commonly described as such, but Wikipedians should not get in the habit of stroking their proverbial beards and deciding what the world (and bots) will now call certain people or things (at least not on Wikipedia - by all means, blog and categorize your hearts out elsewhere). --Animalparty! (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-defining. These pseudoscientists are not primarily defined as astronomers, or in relation to a claim to be scientific astronomers. Pseudoscientific astronomy could also be easily confused with astrology, which does not seem to be the topic here. Place Clichy (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2022 (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:History in fiction[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#Category:History in fiction

Sex offenders by nationality[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: containerize. With regards to some of the exceptions that Fayenatic london proposed, might this be a place where IAR can be invoked? bibliomaniac15 03:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containerize per precedent, see this previous recent discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Denniscabrams, Jim Michael, LaundryPizza03, Peterkingiron, Laurel Lodged, Orangemike, Dugwiki, Crazysuit, Greg Grahame, Xtifr, and Craig.Scott: pinging contributors to recent discussion and to older 2007 discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle Support -- We should only have articles on people who were convicted or died (e.g. suicide) after being indicted. However the British category includes two articles related to sex offences, rather than offenders. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since it's been sitting for a month and hasn't been actioned or commented on...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Containerize per above. Place Clichy (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diffuse but do not containerise. It was me who closed the precedent discussion, but on closer inspection I believe that it came to an incorrect decision. Sure, most of the articles are already in more specific sub-cats, or could be moved there. However, for some articles there is no appropriate sub-cat, and yet categorising as a sex offender is still defining and useful. For example, in English sex offenders:
– Fayenatic London 08:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least the last case is a good example of how overreaching categorization of sexual offenders can bring together too many unrelated things. The previous decision is good in reserving the category to a more precise predefined list of specific offenses. Indecent exposure is typically the kind of things which will be criminalized in some cultures and jurisdictions and shrugged upon elsewhere. In the case of Shipperley, it seems that the intro defines him by his football and coaching carreer, whereas a public masturbation incident would probably not be defining for him or be mentioned in introduction. It would therefore be perfectly fine if this article is no longer in any sexual offender category as a result of the containerization decision. Place Clichy (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Containerize We should limit this to convictions in the category space. Allegations can be addressed in a more nuanced fashion in the text of the article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2022 (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:Generalbezirk Litauen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#Category:Generalbezirk Litauen

Category:Faculty by university or college in Finland[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: Rename "Academics" to Academic personnel, per the associated article name; i.e. to Category:Academic personnel of the University of Helsinki and Category:Academic personnel of the University of Turku. (If this was a speedy nom, it could potentially have been WP:C2D.) The use of "faculty" was opposed. There are concerns about consistency in the broader tree(s). Volunteers to help with broader cleanup, would, I presume, be welcome : ) - jc37 09:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Faculty by university or college in Finland is split half and half between "Academics of.." and "..faculty". The rest of Scandinavia is all "..faculty". If these are agreed the others can be done speedily. Rathfelder (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the categories for the neighbouring countries all use faculty (Norway, Sweden, Russia), and it is Category:Faculty by university or college. No Finland-specific reason to use 'academics' AFAIK. Oculi (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and would support cleaning up any others. Category:Academics is problematic, as is the existence if Category:Scholars and academics Category:Scholars. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Calling the academic staff of a university "faculty" is an Americanism, so that the rules on ENGVAR apply. If the Finnish term were anything like either term, I would support moving to that. Swedish appears to use a cognate word, but I do not know if it applies to the people as opposed to a section of the university. No doubt Norwegian will be similar, However, Finnish is an unrelated language. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont personally like this use of the word faculty, but I think our categories should be as consistent as possible. It doesnt make sense to try to apply ENGVAR in places where English is not the language. Rathfelder (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Faculty" is an Americanism not generally used elsewhere. Everywhere else it generally only refers to a collection of departments, not the academic staff within them. There is no reason whatsoever to standardise using the American term as opposed to the term used by other English-speaking countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the term used to categorise all European academics outside the English speakers. Consistency is more important than anti-Americanism. By all means propose that we switch all the other countries to "Academics of ...." but it makes no sense to treat Finland differently. Rathfelder (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not "anti-Americanism". It's questioning why what is almost exclusively an American term is being applied to other countries. WP:COMMONALITY surely applies. Everyone uses "academics". "Faculty" only has limited usage and means something entirely different in most other countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Much as I sympathise with your argument, repeated efforts to switch various countries from "faculty" to "academics" have been defeated. Rathfelder (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be an idea to relist this as an AB nomination including all "faculty" subcategories. There should be consistency in a country one way or another, to begin with. Second, if there would be a choice, I would support harmonizing on academics unless there is a strong ENGVAR case for "faculty" in a particular country (but that is not the case here). Marcocapelle (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support consistency. Renata•3 21:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming The (geographically neutral) article is at Academic personnel; this is the wording the categories should use. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They should but they dont. It isnt helpful to use both terms in the same category. By all means propose that we should rename all the faculty categories. Rathfelder (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now because there should at least be consistency at the national level. I would support a more general renaming to e.g. academic personnel if that is the neutral term, because it is true that in many contexts, at least in Europe, university faculties refers to what is called university department in the Anglo word, not to the teachers. Place Clichy (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These academic categories are a mess. Repeated proposals to make them more consistent have not produced any agreement at the level of individual countries. Is there any way of getting a wider debate? Rathfelder (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2022 (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:Altaic multilingual support templates[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) Qwerfjkltalk 15:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category based on a largely discredited hypothesis. The Altaic hypothesis is rejected by modern comparative linguists and the minority that do support the hypothesis disagree on which language families should be included, making the extent of the category unclear. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2022 (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:Sahu Wikipedians[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) 05:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Le Deluge, who reverted an attempt to add this category when it was still red, in any case categories should always map directly to a (non-disambiguating) article, which is not the case here. Assuming that the category is actually "Wikipedians with the surname Sahu" as the link implies, that would fail WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a Category of Wikipedians by Surnames. Tushar (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And how does it ha[ve] the capacity to facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia? * Pppery * it has begun... 17:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not promote collaboration. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2022 (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:English Jews of the Early Modern period[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) JBchrch talk 15:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the articles are in Category:18th-century English Jews. There dont seem to be any other categories of People of the Early Modern period‎ Rathfelder (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2022 (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:Brahmin Indian independence activists[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 to Category:Indian independence activists. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previous discussions and CfDs [1] have consensus not to have caste categorizations. Also, WP:NONDEF, the defining one is the parent cat of Indian independence activists — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:40, 3 June 2022 (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:Populated places in Ismailli District[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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The district's name is spelt with a Y: "Ismayilli", not "Ismailli". — Golden call me maybe? 07:46, 3 June 2022 (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:World Baseball Softball Confederation events[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: rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More natural name that matches other sports governing bodies. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2022 (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.

Coffeehouses and cafés by country[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. ✗plicit 13:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1-3 articles in these categories. Note that most countries will have many coffeehouses and cafés, but very few of them are notable. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The parent tree should be reorganised to differentiate between individual cafés and branded coffee chains. Many of these should be upmerged not to the restaurants category but restaurant chains. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point, for this nomination it implies a manual merge. I will be happy to sort that out if necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No objection in principle -- I would suggest that Paul_012 should implement what he suggests by adding appropriate target categories to the articles to achieve the split. When he can tell is that he has done that we can delete the old categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection as well per above. Original seems overly specific and change is good. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2022 (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:Texts in unknown languages[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) Qwerfjkltalk 15:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too similar in scope to Category:Manuscripts written in undeciphered writing systems and Category:Undeciphered historical codes and ciphers,the former of which already contains the sole article, Rohonc Codex. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- all three articles appear to have sufficient appropriate categories, without this one existing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These seem well categorized. No objection to an administrative cat if needed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2022 (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:Forbes 30 Under 30 recipients[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. – Fayenatic London 13:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete, as WP:NOTDEFINING, based on a published list. There have been many versions of list, meaning (in theory) many hundreds of articles could be placed in this category, and I posit that being listed is not a defining category for the subject of any of them. We have reached consensus to delete similar categories applied to companies, such as Category:S&P 500, Category:Fortune 500 companies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOPTEN. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really thought this was a defining category--I use to read over the list every year and those who were on the list had impressive accomplishments--and I was coming here to say Keep until I read here that there are many versions of this list. I thought it was just an annual list but if there are different lists broken down into occupational areas or nationalities or geographic areas, then it is no longer defining, I think. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that WP:OCAWARD is more relevant here, as an individual being nominated a 30 Under 30 is often considered an individual award, rather than a "published list" such as a 500 greatest albums list as for WP:OCLIST/WP:TOPTEN. That guideline writes that "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." I believe it to be the case here because this is a youth award, and a most significant one: in most cases, recipients (and their prior accomplishments) will receive significant spotlight when they will be named a Forbes 30 under 30, because of the award itself, making the award defining. Note that this will not necessarily be the case with all youth-based awards. Place Clichy (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a top thirty list meant to get clicks online. It's also WP:OCAWARD that really just acknowledges young people who are already known for their early success. These people are not defined for being featured in an article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2022 (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:Time 100[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) Qwerfjkltalk 15:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete, as WP:NOTDEFINING, based on a published list. There have been over 20 editions of this list, meaning (in theory) over 2,000 articles could be placed in this category, and I posit that being listed is not a defining category for the subject of any of them. We have reached consensus to delete similar categories applied to companies, such as Category:S&P 500, Category:Fortune 500 companies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2022 (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/2022_June_3&oldid=1109731549"