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. MER-C 18:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fiction set in the 11th millennium or beyond to Category:Fiction set in the 7th millennium or beyond

Nominator's rationale: Fiction set in the 7th, 9th and 10th millennia were just merged to Category:Works set in the future, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_16#Category:Fiction_set_in_the_7th_millennium. They were small categories, with only 6 members,[1] unlike this one. I suggest that, rather than leave the present gap which is seen in the navigation template at Category:Fiction set in the 6th millennium, it would be better to merge the former content of 7th–10th with this one as 7th or beyond. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @LaundryPizza03, Marcocapelle, and MER-C: Courtesy ping to the previous participants and closer. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency. By the way, we might instead argue whether millennium is a defining characteristic at all in most of these cases. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Timeline of the far future was broadened up to the 4th millennium because the articles about the 4th–10th millenia contained very little information aside from astronomical events. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- There might be scope for a list article Fiction set in the far future by period. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2020 (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. MER-C 19:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Small category with no reasonable possibility of expansion. Its parent category, category:MUD servers, is sufficient. czar 21:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2020 (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: dual merge. MER-C 19:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Heritage railways in Jersey to Category:Heritage railways in the Channel Islands

Nominator's rationale: The category contains only a single page, Pallot Heritage Steam Museum (there are no other heritage railways in Jersey, with or without articles) so I propose to upmerge this to parent categories Category:Heritage railways in the Channel Islands (which has just one other member, Alderney Railway) and Category:Transport in Jersey. Note: both the nominated category and parent Channel Islands category are members of Category:Heritage railways by country. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual merge per nom. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual merge per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support dual merge -- The size and constitutional status of the Channel Isles means that it is difficult to avoid having some small categories, as a higher level upmerge target will not exist (or at least not make a useful target). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2020 (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: keep. MER-C 19:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Iraq–Jordan border crossings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Karameh Border Crossing is only border crossing on Iraq–Jordan border. I think that category with only one page doesn’t needed. 217.117.125.72 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If not kept, merge to all three parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this is part of an established hierarchy structure; see e.g. Category:Border crossings of Saudi Arabia for more single-member categories. – Fayenatic London 23:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Fayenatic and per WP:SMALLCAT's exemption for established series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 3 November 2020 (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. MER-C 14:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:2020s in the Netherlands Antilles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Anachronism. The Netherlands Antilles was dissolved in 2010. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 25 October 2020 (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: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Too little content: two subcats link to one another and only three articles (in addition to the main one). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, the content is normal and adequate for a popular performer. It includes a discography, a television show, a tour, the co-creator of the act, plus two subsections of songs and albums. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Randy Kryn, Why does that justify a category? The requirements for eponymous categories are high and there is already a navbox for all of these articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Categories, lists, and templates are three different ways to organize a topic and the existence of one does not justify deleting either of the other two. They are created and applied separately per the first paragraph of WP:CLN. This category seems justifiable per its variety of contents, and seems pretty standard for popular entertainers. As for template/navboxes, another reason they shouldn't be compared or contrasted with lists or categories in a deletion discussion is that they don't appear on mobile devices, and are thus inaccessible to mobile readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Question I would not have created the category since it has less than 5 direct articles (since Titanic Sinclair does not belong) but WP:SMALLCAT is frustratingly vague on what counts as small. What article counts are each of you looking for here? RevelationDirect (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a more useful criterion than a number of articles is whether the content is already directly interlinked (or can easily be directly interlinked). If that is the case (I think it is the case here) an eponymous category is wholly redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's clearly more important that we keep this to the people who made this, use this and want to keep it, than deleting it would probably feel to those who just reasonably could (now that it's on the table). Does anyone truly despise this here? If not, potential emotional harm should be seriously considered before deciding to destroy this harmless little universe. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal feelings is not a relevant criterion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Affirmative. I said it should be seriously considered. You presumably disagree, so fine, ignore the harm. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with 2 subcategories and 5 articles the category has enough content. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:08, 18 November 2020 (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: keep and populate. – Fayenatic London 18:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Addalaichenai DS Division
• Propose deleting Category:Akkaraipattu DS Division
• Propose deleting Category:Ambalangoda DS Division
• Propose deleting Category:Ampara DS Division
• Propose deleting Category:Anuradhapura DS Division

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete from 3rd level subdivisions to 2nd level subdivisions, per WP:SMALLCAT, by far most of these subdivision categories only contain the eponymous article plus one town. In that case the category can be deleted - because the eponymous article and the towns are already in a subcategory of the district category. If there is more in a category than town(s) and the eponymous article it should be merged to district level. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not understand this comment. A trainwreck is a nomination of a group of related pages for deletion or renaming which fails due to the disparate nature or worth of the pages. In this case the entire (one) tree of DS divisions has been nominated, which is about the opposite of "disparate". Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose To begin with, many of the nominated categories have more than a few members (e.g. Category:Valikamam North DS Division has 15 members). For the rest, WP:SMALLCAT only applies if they have no realistic potential for growth. Most existing articles for Sri Lankan places have not been sub-categorised by DS Divisions. But if, even after doing this, the categories are small it does not mean they they have no realistic potential for growth. According to WP:GEOLAND any legally recognised place is notable, even if their population is very low. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of populated places in Sri Lanka that do not have articles on English Wikipedia. The nominated categories have a huge potential for growth.

Sri Lanka has a population 20 million but only 25 districts, the 2nd level subdivision. If we only categorise populated places at district level these categories will end up with hundreds of articles. Therefore it's only sensible to further sub-categorise at DS Division level.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Even the United States only has second-level subdivision categories so a population size of 20 million is really not an argument here. Besides "If we only categorise populated places at district level these categories will end up with hundreds of articles." is not true because we have already categorized populated places at district level, e.g. Category:Towns in Jaffna District has 59 articles and Category:Villages in Jaffna District has 23 articles. Besides I doubt there are many articles yet to come, rather I expect we have too many. For example, as Vannarpannai is just a suburb of Jaffna, why would Vannarpannai North West even need its own article? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 3,200 counties (second-level subdivisions) in the USA giving an average population of 100,000. Average population of Sri Lankan districts (second-level subdivisions) is almost 900,000. We do have categories for third-level subdivisions in other countries (civil parishes in the UK e.g. Category:Civil parishes in Essex; comarcas in Spain e.g. Category:Comarques of the Province of Lleida).

As I've stated most places in Sri Lanka have yet to be sub-categorised at DS Division level yet. Indeed most have not been sub-categorised at district level (e.g. Category:Populated places in Central Province, Sri Lanka has more than 1,300 articles which need to sub-categorised).--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Populate by moving populated places from their province to their dividion. A category with 1300 members ceases to be an aid to navigation and becomes a hindrance. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2020 (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: rename. MER-C 14:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Defunct newsletters of wikiprojects to Category:Defunct newsletters of WikiProjects

Nominator's rationale: Capitalization of "WikiProjects". Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, as unnecessary capitalization. Various other categories that have "WikiProject" in them in a generic, common-noun (usually plural) sense should also be lowercased. It's fine to capitalize it in the proper name of an actual wikiproject, like WikiProject Military History, though even there the camelcase doesn't really serve a purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The practice of whether WikiProject as a generic term should be capitalized should have its own RfC. We capitalize "Wikipedias", "Englishes", but why not "WikiProjects"? There are several cases of capitalizing "WikiProjects".^[1][2] --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, WP:MOS and various other pages have used "wikiprojects" for years now, yet no one's head asplode. We use "Wikipedias" and "Englishes" because they are proper names, pluralized. If two people named Janet come to your birthday party, there are two Janets present, not two "janets". If two women come to your party, there are two women, not two "Women". You're confusing completely different categories of nouns here, and thereby drawing a false analogy. A much more accurate one: There are many republics in the world; two of them are the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Czech Republic. They are not two "Republics". WP (like almost everyone else using contemporary English) does not capitalize elements from proper names that are taken out of the proper name and used generically. Several generations ago, it was actually fairly common to write in a style like "I attended Harvard University, and while at the University I was abducted by aliens", but it's unlikely there is any style guide still in print that recommends this. The style guides MoS is directly based on are unanimous in recommending against such over-capitalization, and WP avoids it (see, e.g., MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS).

  The categorization titling consistency principle also argues against this move; we do not over-capitalize category names like Category:State parks of the United States, despite every state park having a proper name with "State Park" in it. The consistency is with general English and across categories, not a false consistency being imposed from proper-named category members onto the generic, common-noun-phrase, classifying category containing them. "WikiProject English Language" is a proper name, but "wikiproject[s]" by itself as a generic label is not: "WP:TOL and WP:MILHIST are two important wikiprojects, and WP:FAC is effectively a wikiproject but not tagged as one." The only "case", if you can even call it one, to be made for capitalizing generic use of "wikiproject" as "WikiProject" is excessive fandom of unnecessary camelcase.

  If we were to resolve any wikiproject-related naming inconsistency problem, it should be to fix all the "half a proper name" mis-styled ones in the form WikiProject Foo bar baz, to the form WikiProject Foo Bar Baz (or better yet, Wikiproject Foo Bar Baz, across the board). Capitalizing just the first two words (of wikiproject names with 3 or more elements in them) isn't a style that corresponds to anything normally done in English, and I have no idea how it ever happened to end up applied to any cases at all.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. It's my understanding that "WikiProject" is simply the way we spell the word, following the usage on WP:PROJECT. I don't find SMcCandlish's argument convincing; Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory clearly lists other groups that do not contain "WikiProject" in their official names, and yet they still fit the definition of a WikiProject: "a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia." bibliomaniac15 21:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match "WikiProject" in the parent category and WP:WikiProject. I agree with SMcCandlish that we should use "wikiproject" (and that's the form I use in my essays etc), but we don't (and this isn't the right place to change that). DexDor ^(talk) 11:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - follow Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects. Oculi (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Grutness...wha? 02:28, 27 October 2020 (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: merge. MER-C 19:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Space transport to Category:Spaceflight

Nominator's rationale: Spaceflight and space transport are the same thing. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE Space transport is a valid subcategory of Category:Spaceflight. Space transport is the mundane transport of cargo or (announced, but not yet in operation) passengers, using a space vehicle as the carrier. Early spaceflight was, in contrast, mostly experimental, or very-specialized and highly-expensive science projects like space probes, space telescopes, etc. This is analogous to the early days of flight in the air: the Wright Brothers flight in 1903, and much of the experimental flight experiments of the following decades were not in the business of air transport; even though, 20-30 years later regular air transport of mail, cargo, and passengers were all in their infancy, and the more informal passenger carrying on 15-minute barnstorming flights had started by the late 1910s . But no one would consider the early experimental (or even military flights, in WWI) as "air transport". In space transport, it just took into the sixth decade of humans coming to possess the technology of spaceflight until commercial contracts for transport of space cargo began, for example, the 2008 contracts for transport of cargo to the Space Station where NASA contracted for commercial cargo transport services. So space transport is simply a subset of all the various types of spaceflight that might be done. All space transport is spaceflight; but not all spaceflight is space transport. N2e (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, most articles in the category are not specifically about transport. Without prejudice to recreation of the category when more content is available, maybe after 5 or 10 years. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom/Marco. "Mundane" is too subjective. Maybe check if some articles should be dual merged. Note: As is unfortunately so common at CFD this category has been padded out with articles that don't belong in it (e.g. Human spaceflight) and redirects. DexDor ^(talk) 11:59, 25 October 2020 (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. Category:Buildings and structures completed in the reign of Dutugamunu‎ could be renamed to Category:Buildings and structures completed under Dutugamunu‎ but it would require a new nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEPON and WP:SMALLCAT, there is only a main article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Downmerge to Buildings and structures completed in the reign of Dutugamunu‎, which can have Dutugamunu as its main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, subcategory Category:Buildings and structures completed in the reign of Dutugamunu‎ already contains a link to Dutugamunu in the header. I guess that is what you mean, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that is what I meant. I seem to have failed to link to the intended category. Category:Buildings and structures completed under Dutugamunu‎ would be shorter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2020 (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: rename or merge as indicated. MER-C 14:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging/renaming:

• Category:18th century in California to Category:18th century in Alta California
• Category:1760s in California to Category:1760s in Alta California

Nominator's rationale: anachronism. Until 1848, this area was part of Alta California, a division of New Spain until 1822, and then of independent Mexico. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not straightforward, since Alta California apparently only existed from 1804 to 1836. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, my understanding (derived solely from the head article) is that Alta California was a well-defined region before it became a formal administrative division. The administrative subdivisions changed several times in this period, but to categorise the intersection of history and geography we need some form of stable geographical area. "California" is an anachronism, which refers to a subdivision created at the end of this era, so it's inappropriate ... and it seems to me that Alta California (i.e. the area above the gulf) is the least worst alternative.
    These categories are currently an awful mess, having been largely structured by the prolifically misguided (and long banned) editor User:Look2See1. They jumble up the concepts of "California" and "Alta California", and parent most of the categories under Unite States, long before the area became part of the USA. We need some better structure, and this proposal is the best solution I could see ... tho obvs i am open to better ideas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I left an invitation to join this discussion at the WikiProject California talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While concluding that nobody came up with a better idea, I now support the nomination. The current category name are clearly anachronistic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems clearly better than the current naming. I'm open to subsequent refinement by subject matter experts. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2020 (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. MER-C 14:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT Youth Scotland people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by association. This category comprises two redirects for former executive directors of the organization who aren't independently notable enough for their own standalone biographical articles, and three articles about people who are notable for other reasons (an MSP, a bishop and a comedian) and were associated with this organization as patrons rather than staff. But that means it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the three patrons, because it's not central to what actually made them notable, and essentially approaches WP:PERFCAT territory -- but if they're taken out, then all that's left is the two redirects, and two redirects aren't grounds for a category. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, patronism is not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2020 (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.