< January 8 January 10 >

January 9

Norniron pre-Norniron

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/delete per nom. Under the protection policy, we cannot creation-protect pages for this reason, but future creations could be deleted per this CfD result without need for an additional nomination. ~ Rob13Talk 02:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Propose deleting:
  • Category:17th century in Northern Ireland
  • Category:18th century in Northern Ireland
Propose WP:SALTing
  • Category:12th century in Northern Ireland
  • Category:13th century in Northern Ireland
  • Category:14th century in Northern Ireland
  • Category:15th century in Northern Ireland
  • Category:16th century in Northern Ireland
  • Category:17th century in Northern Ireland
  • Category:18th century in Northern Ireland
  • Category:19th century in Northern Ireland
  • Category:12th century people from Northern Ireland
  • Category:13th century people from Northern Ireland
  • Category:14th century people from Northern Ireland
  • Category:15th century people from Northern Ireland
  • Category:16th century people from Northern Ireland
  • Category:17th century people from Northern Ireland
  • Category:18th century people from Northern Ireland
  • Category:19th century people from Northern Ireland
Nominator's rationale. These categories are anachronisms. Northern Ireland was creaed in 1921. The concept of Northern Ireland as a defined area distinct from Ulster dates only from the period after the introduction in 1912 of the Third Home Rule Bill. The precise shape of its extent as the six counties emerged only later in that decade, and was not formally defined until 1920.
Pre-1921 by-year categories for Northern Ireland were deleted at CFD 2017 July 11 and CFD 2017 July 21.
I propose WP:SALTing the pre-20th-century categories to prevent any further creations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 9 January 2019 (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:17th-century academics

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the other xx-century academics categories either don't exist or are redirects to the corresponding xx-century scholar category (which has a full tree); the parent category was deleted a while back: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_12#Academics_by_century. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2019 (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:Scandals in Northern Ireland

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) 09:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This falls under WP:SMALLCAT. This category only contains a link to the category scandals in Northern Ireland. The controversies in the United Kingdom is quite small already, so it doesn't need to be split into more categories. CircleGirl (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "only contains a link to the category Political scandals in Northern Ireland! Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2019 (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:Catholic Church in Rodrigues

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/delete per nom. ~ Rob13Talk 02:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, per WP:SMALLCAT, these are 4 categories for only 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I'll strike that from the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2019 (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:Buddhism in Seoul

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, not only is this category sparsely populated, also the both merge targets are small categories.Note that the subcategory does not need to be merged, it is already included in Category:Places of worship in Seoul and Category:Buddhist temples in South Korea. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2019 (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:Jewish Roman Empire politicians

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. ~ Rob13Talk 03:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Textbook SMALLCAT. Category contains one member. The subject relates to a defunct country. Needless to say, the number of notable Jewish Roman Empire politicians is not expected to increase anytime soon.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  06:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This appears to misunderstand both the deletion process and the topic of Roman politicians. The burden is not on those who oppose a nomination to prove that the category should exist. It's on the nominator to prove that it should not. More precisely, you need to show that the category will probably never be significantly bigger than it is right now. The number of entries currently in it, and the length of time since the category was created, are relevant but not determinative. The main question is whether there is potential for expansion, and that hasn't been addressed, unless you count the nominator's reasoning that the only way for the category to expand is for future Jewish politicians to rise to prominence in the Roman Empire—which doesn't really say anything about whether there were other Roman statesmen of Jewish descent who could fit into this category. Until there's some realistic attempt to determine whether there's potential for expansion, the rationale for deletion fails.
As for whether "politicians" is the best title, that's a legitimate issue for discussion, but not a basis to delete the category. Perhaps "statesmen" would be better, although "politicians" is used in some other Roman topics for lack of a better word. It's true that Roman governors didn't run for the office and tour their prospective provinces in a jeep, touting their ties to the community and kissing babies. But they didn't come from nowhere; most of them had held elected/appointed office in Rome or the provinces before, and had long political careers, even though we often lack many of the specifics. Any Roman governor is prima facie a politician—unless there's clear evidence to the contrary—although it might also be argued that being appointed to the government of a Roman province constitutes being a politician in itself. This category is like a stub article: a beginning, without any known limits. We don't delete stubs because they're very small; we delete them or merge them into other articles when they're unlikely ever to be expanded. That's what needs to be shown here. P Aculeius (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a guideline with a default process and a rule of exception. The nominator needs to demonstrate that the default process should apply, the opposers (if appealing to the rule of exception) should demonstrate that the rule of exception applies. Everyone claiming something is responsible for justifying one's own claim.
"Statesmen" is an anachronistic term, besides it is questionable even for modern governors whether they should be classified as statesmen. Only "governor" would be really appropriate in this case. But Jewish Roman Empire governors would be even more exceptional and smallcattish. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "whether there were other Roman statesmen of Jewish descent" Several with Jewish descent, but I am uncertain of their religion. Antonius Felix, the procurator of Judea married a princess of the Herodian dynasty. His article mentions several known and possible descendants from the 1st to the 3rd centuries, but does not bother with their religious affiliations. Dimadick (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that any of this group is potentially includible in this category, irrespective of religious practice. I'm not saying they would have to be included, just that they're potentially includible, in the same way that Benjamin Disraeli would tend to be included in a category for modern Jewish politicians, or Felix Mendelssohn among Jewish musicians, despite both of them having been raised as Christians. Returning to the original nomination, are any of them significant enough to warrant articles of their own? P Aculeius (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quick follow-up: if it doesn't look like many of these people will warrant separate articles on Wikipedia (whether or not they already have them), it does sound as if there's enough material for an article about or list of (probably a combination of both) Jewish politicians in the Roman Empire, which could explain the reasons for their scarcity, and why the ones who are known were able to achieve what they did (whether by assimilation, conversion, good fortune, or the policies of particular emperors, for example). So if the final result of this discussion is to delete, the information it was created to contain can still be included in Wikipedia, as an article rather than a category. P Aculeius (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, a list will also provide better insight than a category regarding questions like what occupation people had and to what extent they may be considered to be Jewish. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2019 (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:UNESCO Creative Cities Network

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This isn't a defining attribute of the cities listed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:17, 9 January 2019 (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:Songs from Spider-Man soundtracks

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Based on Category:Songs from James Bond films and I believe a more defining description. Otherwise, following the Batman example, they can be moved to a broader Category:Spider-Man music (see Category:Batman music). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree and I think a similar Batman songs category may be warranted. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of those songs have articles? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rise Above 1 --A really paranoid android (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 04:30, 9 January 2019 (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