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 delete. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Economic films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Made a mistake. Already a page created for this. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Economics_films Backendgaming (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Just created, empty, and nominated by the author. Didn't need to be taken to CfD. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:59, 30 August 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Deni Hines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per numerous precedent and WP:OCEPON, there is not enough independent content for this individual to warrant an eponymous category at this time. Note that there are other article which could be placed under a yet to be created Category:Deni Hines songs but this category still wouldn't be needed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's OVERCAT at this point; one article and one template do not warrant a category. MSJapan (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sunni Muslim communities in Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize places by what the race, ethnicity, or religion that a majority of the residents have. This category is stated for any place with a Sunni Muslim majority population in a country with 70% Sunni Muslim population that would be no doubt most of the places, but in any event, we have deleted these sorts of "majority" categories before Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_20#Populated_places_in_the_United_States_with_African_American_majority_populations, and ought to be consistent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - of course we do classify towns and villages by nationality/religion etc. It is impossible to avoid - especially in such bloody sectarian disputes as the one in Syria. We cannot "close our eyes" to the fact that many conflicts are sectarian. Just take a look at Template:Jewish villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine war and Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus.GreyShark (dibra) 21:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, this types of schemes would too easily lead to overcategorization, every big city may have dozens of these communities. Depopulated villages categories should be regarded as merely exceptional. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we do not categorize places by the majority ethno-religious group. This is too variable, and we then run into a situation where some areas can fall under multiple categories in ways that are truly confusing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jewish American members of the United States Congress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Defamatory. We don't have a category for any other religious affiliation of members of Congress. Why is it so important to single out the Jews? MSJapan (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Defamatory? How? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete presumably all members of the United States Congress are American, so it's just the Jewish part that needs defense: do Jewish congressmembers do things differently than their non-Jewish peers? If so, how and back that up with reliable sources; otherwise trivial intersection and could be handled in a list if the topic is notable; then everyone could be sourced reliably and the distinction between Jewish religion and Jewish ethnicity can be handled. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Jewish members of the United States Congress. A politician's religion will be a significant factor in the way he votes and in his political attitudes. However "American" is a redundant in the category name. If there were a Muslim congressman, I would be surprised if a category would not be created. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meet Keith Ellison and André Carson, the first two Muslim Congressmembers. Both are members of Category:African-American members of the United States House of Representatives, Category:Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives, and Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from their respective states, but not Category:Muslim members of the United States Congress.
    I'm still baffled by MSJapan's assertion that being identified as Jewish is defamatory—or maybe I misread, and it's the "American" part that's defamatory. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos got it. Religion has nothing to do with how a politician votes without proof of such, and there isn't any. Secondly, to be perfectly honest, it's only the Christians (who aren't categorized as such) who do that, because they make a point to say "I voted this way because I am a Christian!" In short, the category is insinuating that a Jewish politician has to be categorized as such, but no one else does. African-American isn't a religion, and political party in a political area is relevant. Religion is not when it's only one religion being pointed out en masse. MSJapan (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a person's religious belief is liable to affect the way a person votes. Po9liticiasn are not automaton controlled by the party leader. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afaics Jewish people from one party do not consistently vote differently than Christian people of that party. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion does effect how people vote on a very broad span of things. It actually probably is even more controlling for those in Category:Mormons members of the United States Congress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename if Kept Congresspeople are required to be American so the article name can be shortened. While this category is hardly defamatory, Wikipedia categories are all over the map for when religion/ethnicity is defining and when it's not. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this discussion is actually about the grandparent Category:Jewish politicians or maybe even about Category:Jews by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Jewish members of the United States Congress per Peterkingiron. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category is built on the assumption that Jewishness is an ethno-religious designation. This was workable more or less in 1975. As of today we are in a situation where it has bifurcated too much. Does Bernard Saunders belong in this category. He does not claim Jewishness is any meaningful way. Jason Chaffetz is another example, where he was only even vaguely culturally Jewish but he is clearly a Latter-day Saint at present but that does not neccesarily negate his Jewishness. In an era when more than half the people who identify as Jewish in the US marry people who do not so identify, and when we are moving more and more toward the only people who are Jewish in a sustained way people Orthodox Religious Jews, yet virtually none of the Jews in congress are such, this category no longer has a clear "yes/no" answer of who does and who does not belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Bernie Sanders says "I'm proud to be Jewish", which he does, how can you say "He does not claim Jewishness is any meaningful way"? Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The nominator's rational could have been worded better. Of course categorizing someone as a [ insert Religion or Ethnicity here ] member of Congress is not defamatory by itself. But such categorization has long been used as a method of disparagement, whether real or only perceived. As an example, witness the attempts by political opponents to paint candidate Barack Obama alternately as "Muslim" or "black liberation Christian", even though being Muslim or Christian is not defamatory. Or witness the similar attempts to highlight candidate John F. Kennedy's Catholicism, even though being a Roman Catholic isn't defamatory; or candidate Mitt Romney's Mormonism, even though being Mormon isn't defamatory. Or to use a recent example mentioned above, political opponents of Bernie Sanders have tried to paint him as alternately Jewish, or not Jewish enough, while editors of Wikipedia did likewise (See this edit summary or this comment). The bottom line Wikipolicy is this: Encyclopedic coverage of a person's religion and ethnicity, with high-quality reliable sourcing and proper context, is allowed in the body of the article. Wikipedia isn't censored. However, pigeon-holing a person into fixed categories (or Infobox fields) involving religion or ethnicity is only allowed when that person is notable because of that religion or ethnicity. Unless Congressman Smith is referred to in virtually all reliable sources as "Jewish Congressman Smith", and is known not as a Congressman, but instead as a Jewish Congressman, then he is not to be categorized as such. Applicable policy:

• WP:BLPCAT: Categories and Infobox fields on religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.
• WP:CATGRS: Avoid categorizing people by non-defining characteristics involving gender/ethnicity/sexuality/disability/religion.
• WP:NONDEF: A defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose (as opposed to a tabular or list form), the subject as having. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a person should have their own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a person. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category or infobox field should be created for a particular attribute of a person. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the person. In cases where a particular attribute about a person is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, an alternative to the Infobox or Category is preferred.
• WP:OCEGRS: People should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.

I suspect that if you go through this category (and its subcategories) and remove every entry that does not meet the above Wikipedia policy requirements to be so categorized, you will likely end up with an empty category -- making it a perfect candidate for deletion. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Polemicists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category violates WP:BLP by accusing people of being polemicists without any citations. There are no requirements for inclusion, so it can be used to attack anyone who's arguments you don't like. Guy Macon (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Note: I removed this cat from the pages it was on as a BLP violation. We can re-add if it is determined not to be a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While a pedant might claim the category refers to the technical meaning of polemic, onlookers know that, in common usage, being a polemicist is bad. Whatever meaning is intended by the category, it is rarely a defining feature of a person, and the label is merely the subjective opinion of a particular observer. Johnuniq (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Several of the articles - such as Ayn Rand and Christopher Hitchens - that Guy Macon removed the category from are about people who are deceased, which means that the category is obviously not a BLP violation in those cases, even though that was the reason he gave for removing it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake. I should have checked to see which ones have been dead for a while and said that I was removing them for being unsourced POV pushing by a drive-by username/possible sock who has a suspicious amount of knowledge about Wikipedia categories for a "new" editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Geography of Earth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2016 (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 to delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jewish sportspeople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Kimock (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization: Non-notable_intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference says: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic."Kimock (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as nomination does not mention subcats (e.g. Category:Jewish sportswomen). See also previous CFDs (example). DexDor ^(talk) 06:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Response: As a Jew I have recently become interested in Jewish cultural contributions. I have found that Wikipedia is very inconsistent in how it categorizes these. Category:Jewish_economists was deleted while Category:Jewish_sportspeople Category:Jewish_explorers Category:Jewish_actors Category:Jewish_scientists and Category:Jewish_inventors remain. There appears to be equal amounts of encyclopedic intersection between Jews and sportspeople and economists. Clearly subcategories of and similar categories to sportspeople should follow the same decisions as sportspeople. Kimock (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kimock: IMO, Jewish sportspeople do constitute a moderately distinct topic, per Maccabiah Games, List of Jewish sportspeople, and the International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame. On a normative level, it may however be discussed whether this categorization contributes to segregation and discrimination more than it does to raising awareness. While I concur with DexDor that all subcategories need to be co-nominated, the nominator might want to further elaborate on these two aspects. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivial intersection between religion/ethnicity and occupation; do Jewish sportspeople do their sport differently than their non-Jewish counterparts? If not, then it's trivial. If they do, pray tell how so and back it up with reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Sandy Koufax, yes. :) He created a huge news furor when he refused to pitch on Yom Kippur, for the Yankees, in the World Series. There is an inconsistency problem, though, as the nom notes. MSJapan (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but - there's definitely a problem. Enough has been written about Jewish sportspeople where I think it is a legitimate subcat. All that being said, are Jews being categorized in occupations, and other religions are not? Are we doing so as an ethnic category or a religious category? This brings up an age-old argument, but I think we need to discuss this in a wider forum. MSJapan (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do worry sometimes that some of our ethnic categories highlight people that break stereotypes, like Category:African-American classical musicians, and I wonder if that's happening here. I'll defer to others whether readers would find this category helpful for navigation or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - we have Category:African-American sportspeople (sectarian definition), Category:American sportspeople of Arab descent (sectarian), Category:Korean sportsmen (ethnic definition), Category:Gay sportsmen (sexual affinity definition), Category:Disabled sportsmen (medical definition). We should either keep all of them or delete all of them.GreyShark (dibra) 21:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category may well have worked 70 years ago, but it is built on a fundamentally antiquated understanding of ethno-religious identies. It does not work with the fluid edges of current Jewish definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If kept we should make this a container category, and force all articles to be in sub-categories where we can demonstrate that the particular overlap of sport and being Jewish in whatever ethnic/cultural/religious or racial way the subject was defined in the complex interaction between the subject and his or her surrounding society was at least generally defining within the sport and preferably particularly defining to the given individual. For example, someone who converted to being Jewish after retiring from playing baseball should not be in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks good. There are a lot of books about it, so we should have it and keep it the way it is. Here are 15 - you cant look at this and say with a straight face this is not recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic - [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] 2604:2000:E016:A700:E51F:7216:F3CC:C87C (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That is was recognized as a dinstict cultural topic 70 years ago does not mean it is today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-John seems to have a strong interest in deletion for some reason. But he hasnt read these 15 books. Many are very current. Where is John coming from? Why would he make up this argument? 2604:2000:E016:A700:4484:D7B0:8756:2C26 (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The impressive number of sources listed above show us the substantiality of the notion of "Jewish sportspeople". Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Former National Football League cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Trivial category. Would be better as a list on the NFL article. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - certainly a NONDEFINING item. Also, as a time-dependent item, it's problematic. Baltimore, Cleveland, and Houston all had teams leave, and then new teams came in to replace them several years later. So they're both former and current. MSJapan (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non defining....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - totally non-defining of a city (e.g. Rochester, New York). DexDor ^(talk) 21:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Are we really willing to apply this when a stadium moves from one part of a Metro Area to another?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:International League Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:OVERLAPCAT

The International League is a minor league baseball league in the U.S. I think specific sports leagues Halls of Fame are rarely defining because we already have the same athletes in the league's team player categories and Halls of Fame by their nature recognize people who already have achieved "fame". This one is especially non-defining though because the players are often getting this award for how they performed once they were called up in the major leagues, not how they did in this league. (Contrast this with the IL MVP Award which is for performance in this league.) The winners of this award are already grouped in four templates. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Rklear as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Ohio. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Related Nomination Category:1990 International League season is nominated for merging here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The hall of fame appears to exist as a travelling exhibition. However that does not prevent WP:OC#AWARD applying. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The League itself is AAA minor-league baseball. The players at that level are therefore the most likely to go on to a career in the majors (and thus become notable per ATHLETE); put another way, the award is inheriting from the player. The Hall itself as an organization is erratic; they basically were defunct for four decades, and their induction criteria are unknown, so the weight of the award isn't clear, either. There is only one person in the list of inductees who does not have an article, and that is because he was inducted as an executive. Therefore, the main article's list should be sufficient. MSJapan (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Upmerging Category:Internet Hall of Fame to Category:Internet pioneers

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)

Leonard Kleinrock designed packet switching in 1964, Bob Kahn co-invented TCI/IP in 1974, and @Jimbo Wales: launched an online encyclopedia in 2000. Do we really think any of these 3 people are defined by an award established in 2012 that recognizes their (much) earlier accomplishments? Like with most halls of fame, this award just reflects the pre-existing fame of the recipients. The winners are currently listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Green Cardamom as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Internet. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bonus Question What do we think of the whole Category:Pioneers by field tree? Anyone else concerned categories like Category:Public relations pioneers might be promotional/subjective? - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'd think the PR cat would be promotional - that's sort of what they do. :) The real question is this - are the "pioneers" self-selected, or are they recognized by others after the fact? If the former, then it's promotional. The latter should be supportable with RS, etc. and should be fine. MSJapan (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete category -- This is typical case of WP:OC#Award. It is legitimate to have a list article on the award, though it is a fairly recent one, but that does not mean we need a category. No objection to merging, but the articles ought to be in the target already. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Peterkingiron. There's no value in an upmerge as noted. MSJapan (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2016 (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.