< June 22 June 24 >

June 23

Category:Wikipedia articles needing reorganization from September 2008

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: procedural close, category has been deleted already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia articles needing reorganization from September 2008 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This empty maintenance category has been nominated for speedy deletion six years ago and hasn't been deleted in six years. It has been empty since 2012. See [1] for the last revision in 2012. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2018 (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:Wikipedia articles needing reorganization from September 2009

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: procedural close, category has been deleted already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia articles needing reorganization from September 2009 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This empty maintenance category has been nominated for speedy deletion six years ago and hasn't been deleted in six years. It has been empty since 2012. See [2] for the last revision in 2012. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2018 (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:Wikipedia articles needing reorganization from March 2010

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: procedural close, category has been deleted already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia articles needing reorganization from March 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This empty maintenance category has been nominated for speedy deletion six years ago and hasn't been deleted in six years. It has been empty since 2012. See [3] for the last revision in 2012. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2018 (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:Wikipedia articles needing reorganization from May 2010

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: procedural close, category has been deleted already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia articles needing reorganization from May 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This empty maintenance category has been nominated for speedy deletion six years ago and hasn't been deleted in six years. It has been empty since 2012. See [4] for the last revision in 2012. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2018 (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:Cleanup tagged articles with a reason field from October 2008

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: procedural close, category has been deleted already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Cleanup tagged articles with a reason field from October 2008 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This empty maintenance category has been nominated for speedy deletion six years ago and hasn't been deleted in six years. It has been empty since 2012. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2018 (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:Potential predatory publishers

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 09:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons Category:Potential predatory journals was unsuitable. Every publisher is "potentially" a predatory publisher. Over time, The Royal Society could be hijacked by quacks. It's unlikely, sure, but not impossible. The category could be salvaged if "potentially" was dropped, and only included unquestionably predatory publishers (e.g. WASET), rather than ones with questionable publishing practices (e.g. Frontiers Media, MDPI), or if the inclusion criteria were made crystal-clear from in the category name (e.g. "Publishers listed on Beall's list", however the list is defunct and no longer updated, which makes it unsuitable in the long term).Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @BrownHairedGirl, Doc James, Randykitty, Jytdog, Tryptofish, QuackGuru, Marcocapelle, Jrfw51, Stuartyeates, Ozzie10aaaa, and StAnselm:, who all participated in the previous discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beal's list is by no means perfect, but you actually have to do quite a bit of mental gymnastic to characterize it as racist/xenophobic or colonialist. Had I reviewed your article, I would have rejected it on those grounds alone for such character assassination without strong footing to back it up, rejecting the blatant equivocation of "I said could be characterized as racist... I didn't said it was racist!". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely with Headbomb. Racist/xenophobic/colonialist??? You've got to be kidding. Any journal accepting this kind of stuff just tumbled down in my estimation. --Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2018 (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:2nd-millennium establishments in the Austrian Empire

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) 06:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium establishments in the Austrian Empire
Nominator's rationale Per WP:Smallcat. Will only ever contain 1 entry. Is not a current state. The "by decade" tree structure is just grand. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2018 (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:Establishments in the Austrian Empire by century

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Austrian Empire by century
Nominator's rationale Per WP:Smallcat. Will only ever contain 1 entry. Is not a current state. The "by decade" tree structure is just grand. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2018 (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:Clerici vagantes

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 09:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only three articles in this category and they are not very coherent. For example, Walter Map is in this category and mentioned in the Clerici vagantes article while he does not meet the definition of clerici vagantes and the term is not mentioned in his biographical article either. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2018 (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:Disputed chemical diagrams

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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category that has not been populated in a very long time.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:16, 23 June 2018 (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