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.
Support per nom, assuming there is consensus about the article name. Note that several articles in this category still contain an extra "h". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 2 February 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 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 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.
Delete per nom. This category is about The Bear Quartet, an Indie rock band from Sweden. The band is probably notable and they have been around for 27 years, but their article is a stub and few of their many albums actually have articles. First we create content, then categories. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 5 February 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.
Support nom -- EU is multi-lingual, with translation at its core. Since UK and Ireland are members and use British orthography, it is inevitable that the EU will invariably spell it "Labour". Peterkingiron (talk) 10:55, 3 February 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.
More identical Soviet awards issued multiple times to the same person
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.
These categories all group people by how many times they have received the same exact civil award, not different levels or degrees of an award. This seems trivial because the people who won the Red Bannner of Labour 5 times don't have any more or less in common with each other than those that only won it 2 times, for example. We don't categorize governors who were elected twice differently than those who were elected once or singers with 3 albums differently than singers with 4 albums. (I'm not asserting that winning the underlying award is undefining under WP:OCAWARD.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I could possibly see a case for having multiple awards as a separate category, but not each number. However I will go along with precedent. There may be a question as to whether some awards were not given so frequently as not to be worth having a category for, but that is for another day. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The number of times a person has won an award is not the basis for a separate category from the main one for the award winners. The article may certainly contain sublists for multiple wins — but it's not a matter for the category system to delineate. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 3 February 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.
Only contains 1 article, Space Propulsion Group, so it doesn't aid navigation and I don't see any immediate room for growth. (If the topic ever gets up to around 5 articles, no objection to recreating though.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While we have a low threshold of notability for companies, this one seems non-notable even for an article, much less for a category. The article on the Space Propulsion Group is an out-of-date stub that only mentions a single client for this company: NASA. They are not an industry powerhouse, have not affected popular culture at all, and have not accomplished any breakthroughs. What are we supposed to cover about them? Dimadick (talk) 08:45, 5 February 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.