June 12
Category:Minority fraternities and sororities
- 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 to Category:Fraternities and sororities by type. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Minority fraternities and sororities to Category:Special interest fraternities and sororities
- Nominator's rationale: I feel "special interest" would be a much better label than "minority", as 1, that is often associated with an ethnic minority, and some of these are religious or LGBT based, 2, some of these are not necessarily minorities like the Christian frats. Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternate Rename/Expand I think Category:Fraternities and sororities by type might be a more standard grouping. (We could then add the local, honor society and professional F&S categories.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Prefer RevelationDirect's tree format. MSJapan (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support alt rename per RevelationDirect. --PanchoS (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and upmerge to Category:Fraternities and sororities, no need for this intermediary level of categorization. Note: do not upmerge to the other parent as Christian and LGBT fraternities and sororities are only "ethnic fraternities and sororities" to those who think ethnicity has nothing to do with ancestry and is fully-fluid, like one's religious choice. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are also a number of Jewish and Islamic frats now; one is both an ethnic and a religious identity, the other purely religious. --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 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.
Category:Student fraternities and sororities
- 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: As defined on the main page, "fraternities and sororities" are, for our purposes, Greek system of organizations that are composed of secondary students (though some may still be considered members after graduation). Therefore student fraternities is superflous. Fraternal groups like the Freemasons, Elks etc are under Category:Fraternal service organizations are are altogether different types of organizations. Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:38, 12 June 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.
Category:Secret student societies
- 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, there is no need to merge because, as nominator points out, the content is already in the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Category:Collegiate secret societies covers this area already. The two subcats that are on here are also there rendering this cat pointless Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:26, 12 June 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.
Category:Co-operative Party (UK) MEPs
- 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per convention of Category:Co-operative Party (UK) politicians. The Co-operative Party has never elected an MEP on its own. Both members of this category were in fact elected as Labour Co-operative. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm mixed on whether this should be a rename for the reasons stated, or a merge into Category:Labour Party (UK) MEPs per SMALLCAT, so I've got a question. I'm not up on UK politics, so is it a tremendously big deal to make the party distinction to Labour-Cooperative considering one of the two is listed as a "Labour and Cooperative" politician? MSJapan (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply @MSJapan: If more of the UK MEPs were properly categorised, there would be be considerably more Labour Co-op MEPs. That's becaise Labour Co-op politicians tend to be misreported in some sources as plain "labour". So SMALLCAT doesn't apply, because there is potential for expansion ... and it also doesn't apply because this is part of a consistent series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename (cat creator) per nom. When I created the category, I was not sure if all Co-operative MEPs in history were Labour Co-operative, so I kept it broader to be on the safe side. But if they are all Labour Co-operative, then really there's no reason not to name the category that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom, now that my question has been answered. MSJapan (talk) 01:25, 16 June 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.
Category:Defense companies of Pakistan
- 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TIES and consistency with other Pakistani defence-related articles. AusLondonder (talk) 15:22, 12 June 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.
Category:Defunct restaurants in Baltimore, Maryland
- 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:Defunct restaurants in Maryland and Category:Restaurants in Baltimore, Maryland. Upmerging the state categories would require a fresh nomination, as they have not been tagged. – Fayenatic London 20:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category with just two entries.
Also upmerge into Restaurants in Baltimore, Maryland. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt rename/expand to Category:Defunct restaurants in Maryland per precedent. Will most probably gain sufficient entries to cease being a WP:SMALLCAT. --PanchoS (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge all subcats into Defunct restaurants in the United States. There's only six subcats, mixed city/state, and 22 entries between them all at that level. It's bordering on overcat - there's plnty of restaurants that go out of business anyplace, true, but not as often are they notable. MSJapan (talk) 01:30, 16 June 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.
Category:Thankful Villages
- 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. The arguments for deletion were stronger (WP:NONDEF). The arguments for keeping didn't successfully refute the assertion that this isn't a defining characteristic of these villages. In fact, in some cases, they acknowledged this to be the case. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This is a classic example of (inappropriately) creating a list using the category system. The main defining characteristic of a village is which county it's in. It is a bit bizarre to categorize a village which did not lose men in a war in a category for that war. It's fine to mention this fact in the text of an article, but there is no need to create a category for every single verifiable fact in articles. This isn't how we normally categorise populated places (e.g. we don't have a category for cities that lost no men in the Falklands War). This category also (currently) puts articles about English villages in a Welsh category. Note: There is a list at Thankful Villages. DexDor (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as defining as having had Queen Victoria visiting your village or having been in It's a Knockout. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is actually a recognised title for those (very few) villages that lost no men in the war. It was rare and is therefore most certainly defining. Comparing the First World War to the Falklands War should obviously be recognised as a ludicrous comparison, as should those comparisons mentioned above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be a recognised title for those interested in WWI, but for those interested in a village it may not be (e.g. I used to live near one of these villages and visited it many times, but was unaware it had this status). Re "It was rare and is therefore most certainly defining.": I suggest you look at WP:DEFINING. A village having an unusual status with regard to a war is rare, but that's a good reason for not using it for categorization; categorizing villages by a non rare characteristic (e.g. by which county they are in) is a good way to categorize because it provides a comprehensive way to categorize. There are lots of rare things that may be mentioned in an article (e.g. that a Nobel prizewinner has lived there, that it has an alternative name, that it has been visited by US president, that it is in a different county to its post town, that it is not on the national electricity grid...), but those would not be good ways to categorize. If you don't like the mention of the Falklands War then how about a category for US towns that lost no men in the Vietnam War? or towns in Germany that were not bombed in WWII? - this isn't how we normally categorize places. DexDor (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I had no idea Thankful villages were a thing - but I do now. The common narrative is every village lost something, in fact I don't think I've ever been to a village without a memorial. I think it's notable that some villages never lost, as they are pretty exceptional. Drowz0r (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note, I've found this page which is a manually updated list of what the categories can manage more effectively anyway. I would recommend checking the lists against one another and using the category instead of the manual list (page) as it'd be a lot easier to maintain. Drowz0r (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Re "using the category instead of the manual list" - are you suggesting the list be deleted, but the category kept? DexDor (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Necrothesp and Drowz0r. This probably isn't a defining characteristic of these villages, but it is a useful category. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; I would say listify, but the list already exists and it is quite short, so easily maintained.
It's an interesting fragment of history, but no evidence is offered that this is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of these villages. The only argument for keeping it appears to be that somebody devised the term and compiled the list ... but I see no evidence that the term itself ever achieved wide currency, or that it is well-known now, let alone that these villages are widely-known by this attribute. I did a sample check (of the 9 villages in counties beginning with "L"), and each of them already links to the page Thankful Villages. That will do fine as a navigational hub. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would be reluctant to categorize a village that is hundreds of years old by the events of 1914-1918 unless there was a major battle there or the like. To categorize these places by something that did not happen duruing that time period, goes too far. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. To me, it looks like this characteristic is notable, but not defining, for the villages involved. We have the notability part taken care of with the article; we don't need the categories to extend this to a defining feature. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 20 June 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.
Kingdom of León
- 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: selective merge to Category:Centuries in the Kingdom of León, Category:10th century in the Kingdom of León, Category:12th century in the Kingdom of León, Category:Establishments in the Kingdom of León, Category:Establishments in the Kingdom of León by century, and Category:12th-century establishments in the Kingdom of León; and delete the rest. (For the record, the 1164 category was empty at the time of closure, and I was not able to determine what had been its former member.) – Fayenatic London 15:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Five articles in this tree. Oddly, none of these categories are in the history tree currently, but they belong there. ~ RobTalk 06:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Too many one-article categories here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Category:Centuries in the Kingdom of León, Category:10th century in the Kingdom of León, Category:12th century in the Kingdom of León, Category:Establishments in the Kingdom of León, Category:Establishments in the Kingdom of León by century, and Category:12th-century establishments in the Kingdom of León. Delete the rest. These are well-established category trees, and there is sufficient room for expansion, so we should seek a pragmatic compromise. Unsure whether we need Category:History of the Kingdom of León, and how it would be different to Category:Kingdom of León. --PanchoS (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @PanchoS: I could support this compromise solution, although I question whether we'll ever get 5 articles in any of these. If the basis for keeping is an existing category tree, we really should be creating the History category. All other establishments categories are a part of the Category:History by country tree. ~ RobTalk 04:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- …except that quite some Category:History by former country categories have recently been merged up to the country's main category, as everything about the country is history. --PanchoS (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @PanchoS: I'm not familiar with the background on this issue, since I haven't been around at CfD all that long. My interpretation of the scope of "History of ..." trees is that they're for specific events/establishments/disestablishments in the history of the country. On the other hand, a topic category on the country would include things like biographies of people from the country, general articles on issues of that country that don't relate to a specific incident, articles on political bodies/offices, articles on towns/villages/cities, etc. I see that as a worthwhile distinction. Is there a different precedent on how the "History of ..." tree is scoped? ~ RobTalk 17:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per PanchoS.GreyShark (dibra) 19:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and create general history category per nom. This is a bit much for such a limited amount of content. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective keep, per PanchoS. That compromise removes most of the clutter, but retains the basic structure for a topic area which is well capable of expansion. Those linking to WP:SMALLCAT should remember that it says "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members" (emphasis added by me). It doesn't say avoid small categories entirely.
The Kingdom of León had several hundred years of history, in an era where records were kept, and it gets ~270 hits on google books and 228 hits on JSTOR... so our present scant coverage is well capable of expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective keep -- The kingdom existed 910-1230. There is probably sufficient to keep the centuries categories, though the establishments can probably be merged into a single establishment in Leon. single year and decade categories are probably never going to get enough content to justify therie existence. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge We just do not have enough articles to justify this fine subdivision at the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 29 June 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.
Griqualand East
- 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 and delete per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:1863 establishments in Griqualand East to Category:Griqualand East, Category:1863 in South Africa, and Category:1863 establishments in Africa
- Propose deleting Category:1860s in Griqualand East
- Propose deleting Category:1863 in Griqualand East
- Propose deleting Category:1860s establishments in Griqualand East
- Propose deleting Category:Establishments in Griqualand East
- Propose deleting Category:Establishments in Griqualand East by year
- Propose deleting Category:Years of the 19th century in Griqualand East
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. One article in this whole tree. ~ RobTalk 06:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Just one article in a whole tree doesn't make any sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - the proposal can make sense, but includes an anachronistic "1863 in South Africa", which hadn't existed until 1910.GreyShark (dibra) 19:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is part of a long running discussion that hasn't reached consensus in either direction. By lack of consensus these anachronistic categories are being kept by default, and since they exist it is a proper merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically what Marcocapelle said. I have no qualms against getting rid of that target. I only put it in there because this category is already within that tree. If this nomination doesn't go through, the one article will remain in the tree of Category:1863 in South Africa by default. ~ RobTalk 04:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. I have no problem with a reference to "South Africa" in 1863. People who specifically research the history of South Africa do not come to pre-1910 events and suddenly state that there is no more history. The "anachronism" arguments depends on accepting that the only thing that counts is political entities, which of course is nonsense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 21 June 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.
Federal Republic of Central America
- 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/merge to "Central America". – Fayenatic London 19:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:1823 establishments in the Federal Republic of Central America to Category:History of the Federal Republic of Central America and Category:1823 establishments in North America
- Propose merging Category:1824 establishments in the Federal Republic of Central America to Category:History of the Federal Republic of Central America and Category:1824 establishments in North America
- Propose merging Category:1825 in the Federal Republic of Central America to Category:History of the Federal Republic of Central America and Category:1825 in North America
- Propose merging Category:1838 disestablishments in the Federal Republic of Central America to Category:History of the Federal Republic of Central America and Category:1838 disestablishments in North America
- Propose deleting Category:1823 in the Federal Republic of Central America
- Propose deleting Category:Years of the 19th century in the Federal Republic of Central America
- Propose deleting Category:1820s in the Federal Republic of Central America
- Propose deleting Category:Decades in the Federal Republic of Central America
- Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Federal Republic of Central America by year
- Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Federal Republic of Central America
- Propose deleting Category:1820s establishments in the Federal Republic of Central America
- Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Federal Republic of Central America by decade
- Propose deleting Category:19th-century establishments in the Federal Republic of Central America
- Propose deleting Category:1824 in the Federal Republic of Central America
- Propose deleting Category:1838 in the Federal Republic of Central America
- Propose deleting Category:1830s in the Federal Republic of Central America
- Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in the Federal Republic of Central America by year
- Propose deleting Category:1830s disestablishments in the Federal Republic of Central America
- Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in the Federal Republic of Central America by decade
- Propose deleting Category:19th-century disestablishments in the Federal Republic of Central America
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Four articles in this tree. It's on the edge of being worth the history category, but given the overall categorization scheme, the exception of SMALLCAT applies. The by-year categories aren't justified, though. ~ RobTalk 05:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Too many one-article categories here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - a well built and semi-developed tree of a former state, to be populated more in the future.GreyShark (dibra) 19:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/expand resp. merge to Category:Establishments in Central America, Category:Years in Central America etc.,
as part of the Category:Establishments in North America, Category:Years in North America etc. trees,
per precedent Category:Establishments in the Caribbean, Category:Years in the Caribbean etc. --PanchoS (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. This is a bit much. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/expand/repurpose per PanchoS. This retains the work done on the existing structure, but removes the very narrow constraints of time and geography of the Federal Republic of Central America. As Panchos notes, there is a succesful parallel for this type of tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Support -- We are never going to get enough content for a state that existed 1821-41 to merit more than a very few categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose There are lots more articles that we currently have that should be put in these categories but have not been yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 29 June 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.
Category:Recipients of the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal
- 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:PERFCAT
- The Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal is given to any Canadian citizen (military or civilian) who spends more than 30 days working as an official peacekeeper. The award was established in 1988 but, as of 2012, about 75,000 had already been issued (source) so I don't think a list is an option here. We generally don't categorize by campaign medals because career soldiers often accrue many of these which is why there are no other recipient subcategories under Category:Canadian campaign medals. -RevelationDirect (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Notified Jack Cox as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Military history. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not a notable award, and therefore not a defining characteristic for an individual. MSJapan (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just a service medal and we don't usually have categories for those. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 15 June 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.
Category:Clare Boothe Luce Award winners
- 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) ~ RobTalk 04:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose Deleting Category:Clare Boothe Luce Award winners
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
- This is an award from the Heritage Foundation for advancing American conservative political causes, but going through their press releases, I was only able to identify maybe a third of the winners so I listed them here. Thie Clare Boothe Luce Award article was a word-for-word copy this site so I reworded it but others may want to improve the article further. In any case, this obscure award does not seem defining for President Ronald Reagan, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher or Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Notified Stargat as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Conservatism. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Closing Admin: I missed tagging this category until 6/14. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OC#AWARD. The recipients of this award appear to be all either a) so notable that the award is in no way defining ... or b) so obscure that they are not notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:31, 21 June 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.
Category:Prince Philip Designers Prize
- 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) ~ RobTalk 04:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose Deleting Category:Prince Philip Designers Prize
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
- The Prince Philip Designers Prize was originally presented by Prince Philip to a British designer, but now it's not presented by him and it's a more global award. The real problem here is that the definition of "designer" is intentionally vague: building designers (architects), a jewelry designer, a computer chip designer, a graphic designer who updated the BBC logo, the illustrator who designed the cartoons in Roald Dahl's books, a motor vehicle designer, a silk textile designer, a folding bicycle designer and more. Wikipedia does have a Category:Designers category but it's more of a container for different sub-specialties because designing something is too vague and, similarly, this category seems too broad to be defining. These winners are already listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Notified Sladen as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject United Kingdom. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see no evidence that this prize is in any way defining for any of its recipients. It is already listified in the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:54, 21 June 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.