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.
Nominator's rationale: After previous discussion, removed all those who committed suicide due to alcoholism/depression/poverty or were already in custody (those are two other categories). The three remaining are spies who committed suicide to prevent capture or interrogation. WP:SMALLCAT. Moreover, already in related spying and suicide categories.
Delete per nom. Nothing really useful in these categories. Orientls (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "The three remaining are spies who committed suicide to prevent capture or interrogation." So their suicide is directly connected to their job, and is not a trivial intersection. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the three remaining, I'll suppose it is a related intersection as proffered by Dimadick, That doesn't mean we categorize on it. It was notable that James Buchanan was an (the only) unmarried US president, but we don't categorize on that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Those brave enough to kill themselves to prevent their secrets being extracted under interrogation deserve a category, as this is closely connected with being a spy. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2021 (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:Samurai who committed suicide
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.
Propose deletingCategory:Samurai who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: After previous discussion, removed all those who committed suicide due to depression (poison/drowning); not seppuku, where they were already categorized. Now empty.
Delete With seppuku pulled out as a separate category, this becomes entirely a non-notable intersection. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2021 (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:Writers who committed suicide
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.
Category:Shovelware video games
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.
Nominator's rationale: The definition of shovelware is subjective and may be limited to a subset of critics. We already have List of video games notable for negative reception with actual context, but it works poorly for a category sans context. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, "shovelware" is a subjective term of the art, and a list (standalone or embedded in Shovelware) would be better to give the necessary context for subjectivity. --Masem (t) 23:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every time I see this word appear from journalists, its used as an insult. In my opinion, shovelware can't be definable by definition or consensus. Le Panini[🥪] 23:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective and non-technical term. Impossible to apply with any consistency, and even journalists will at best apply this sporadically, as an insult, with no consistency. Wikipedia shouldn't categorize articles based on insults, no matter how verifiable. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. We cannot in Wikipedia's voice say, authoritatively, that "these video games are trash".--AlexandraIDV 08:37, 16 January 2021 (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:People from Dundas County, Ontario
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.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary splitout for a historical county that was merged into the contemporary United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry in 1850. The existing category isn't so large as to need standalone subcategories for each of the three former counties as separate entities -- even merged, it's a very rural county with a total population of just over 110K now, so it's not like its category is in any dire need of diffusion on a distinction that stopped being relevant or useful 171 years ago. That said, I'm not convinced that the SDG category couldn't do with a rename — do we really have to stand on the officialese "United Counties of" wording instead of finding something simpler, especially if its opaqueness to an outsider makes duplicate categories like this happen? — but that's a separate question from whether Dundas needs its own dedicated category or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, I guess technically we could keep it for people who lived there before 1850, but the category now also contains people born after 1850, so apparently this category only leads to confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2021 (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:Saguenay Hydrological System
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.
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia does not have an established system of categorizing lakes and rivers together by their "hydrological system". (For an example of why this is a problem, the Saguenay version is filed as a subcategory of Category:Tributaries by river -- yet it includes lakes, which are not "tributaries" of rivers.) This is especially true when we do not even have an article about the "hydrological system" to explain what it is or why anybody should be interested -- and if we don't have an article about it, then we shouldn't have a category grouping lakes and rivers by their purported inclusion in a thing we don't have an article about (and thus also no reliably sourced indication that the category is even correct). Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2021 (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:American novelists/poets of X descent
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/merge as nominated.Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:American novelists of Arab descent
Propose deleting Category:American poets of Arab descent
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCEGRS. I would also nominate Category:American novelists of Lebanese descent but it has 5 articles. User:Namiba 17:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arab descent, it is a big misunderstanding that all Middle Eastern people are of Arab ethnicity. Merge the others (including Lebanese) as trivial intersections within writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged Category:American novelists of Lebanese descent as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Their ethnic background is not a trivial topic. No opposition to delete "of Arab descent" if they improperly cover all Middle Eastern people. Dimadick (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dimadick, regardless of OCEGRS issues, they are all very small categories. Merging these categories doesn't erase their descent category. It simply puts them in a category with other writers of their descent.--User:Namiba 21:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete per nom. All these categories are well under 5 entries, so there is no reason to have them. We cannot assume that people from any of these countries, or people with ancestors from these countries would see themselves as Arabs. Many Egyptians view themselves as Copt not Arab. On the other hand, there are many people in the US who had ancestors in Egypt who were Greeks living abroad and not Arabs. Similar issues come up with all these countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per nom. Arab descent seems to be less defining than national descent here, and is applied inconsistently anyway. Place Clichy (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2021 (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:Booker Prize shortlists
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.
Doesn't seem so -- in literary awards, this is a very common element of classifying or representing the relative notability/reputation of books -- for these high profile, national awards it seems very appropriate, Sadads (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for winners of literary awards. Not nominees/shortlistees. Before listing this category for discussion I searched for the existence for arts awards nominees categories, but came up short. Οἶδα (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There were several others but they were previously deleted in CFD; see the "Background" note below. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would certainly query the word 'obvious'. I picked On Chesil Beach at random and a whole section is devoted to the Booker shortlisting. Picking a second Fasting, Feasting at random, the booker listing is again defining. Oculi (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there is an argument to be made that a Booker shortlisting is a defining characteristic. But then again, I'd argue the longlist is as well. However, I'm still not entirely convinced this category's existence is warranted. We do not have categories for nominees even in the case of the very best-known awards, such as the Nobel Prizes and the Academy Awards (Oscars). An Oscar snub is often a very defining characteristic, and the Nobel is not much different (see Tolstoy). Still no categories, and if there ever were they seem to have been deleted per a consensus here. Οἶδα (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The Booker is one of those rare awards that's so important that simply getting shortlisted is pretty defining of a book all by itself even if the book doesn't actually win — but I do think the category is misnamed. I would expect a category named this way to contain the lists themselves, not a comprehensive directory of all the individual books in the lists, so it should really be named Category:Books shortlisted for the Booker Prize, or something along those lines, if it's to exist. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are definitely awards that are defining and the Booker Prize is one of them; failing to win the award is another matter and this feels like WP:TOPTEN. We generally avoid negative categories where we group things that are not something, in this case not Booker Prize winners. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background We previously deleted categories for those that did not win the Victoria Cross here and those that did not win a whole variety of awards including the BAFTA here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. It will take some work, but this would be far better organised by year rather than alphabetically by title. In fact when I saw the nomination, I assumed the category contained articles on the annual short-lists rather than simply titles. One long list article containing all the years' nomination lists or a series of articles, one for each year, would make much more sense than this. Note that if the latter is done, with separate yearly list articles, this category could still be useful to hold them. Grutness...wha? 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Oculi. This is defining for books, and often defines their notability for Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2021 (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.
Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia
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 (no opposition). Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The school is "Conservatorio", not the Accademia itself. The renaming has been addressed on WikiProject Opera. Seanetienne (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2021 (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:Asian-American librarians
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; no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of affinity groups exist, it doesn't make the intersection a notable one for WP purposes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the journal article you have shared, I think a fascinating article could be written about Librarians and the Third Reich. Perhaps even a category on Nazi librarians. But you do not disprove my point, which is also backed by Wikipedia's guidelines.--User:Namiba 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EGRS, "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must at least be possible to create one. Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources.--User:Namiba 17:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename and containerize per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Defining, but poorly named. Dimadick (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename While we cannot seem to get a consensus to delete this, we clearly should rename it to match other similar categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Ample precedent for all non-US descent categories. IN this case, the librarians may well be curating Asian literature. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2021 (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:Indigenous librarianship
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.
Nominator's rationale: This title seems to better reflect the content, per the three Native American parent categories and the format of sibling categories in parent Category:Librarians by ethnicity. Place Clichy (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match content and actual current usage practices.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse manually, the category contains 2 articles about Native Americans and 1 article about First Nations, that is too little to keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we also discourage trans-national racial categories. We can also create Category:First Nations librarianship and put things that fit better there under that category. Categorization is by ethnicity not race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change the name appropriately if one is a "First Nation" rather than a "Native American" something ought to be chose to be accurate: "Indigenous" is totally ambiguous and used this way seems to indicate that the librarianship is home-grown not for people claimed to be "indigenous" to somewhere (which may include all sorts of peoples like Irish being indigenous to Ireland, Chinese being indigenous to China, Japanese being indigenous to Japan, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for clarity. Orientls (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2021 (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 Order of Saint Catherine
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.
Propose deletingCategory:Grand Mistresses of the Order of the Starry Cross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deletingCategory:Dames of the Order of the Starry Cross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Orders for high born ladies. Not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is even more overcategorization by award received.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Being female royalty is absolutely defining; getting these awards because of that status is non-defining due to WP:OCAWARD and WP:OVERLAPCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another clear example of overcategorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2021 (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:Latvian expatriates in the Republic of 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:no consensus. I seriously considered whether to relist this or do a no-consensus close, but the conversation was quite active and populated, CfD is a small place, and it had opened nearly a month ago. No prejudice against further nominations. (non-admin closure)Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the "in Ireland" categories are acting as country categories, not island categories. There really is just not enough content to justify having both country and island categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but delete the target. I just looked this up, we have Republic of Ireland as the article on the country, and Ireland as the article on the island. Based on this we should migrate most of what is in Category:Expatriates in Ireland to Category:Expatriates in the Republic of Ireland. It would also suggests that we should rename some other categories so they clearly apply based on the polity in question. We already recognize this a little with categories like Category:Irish emigrants to the United States (before 1923). This is one of very few cases where the simple name does not lead to the specific modern country article. On the other hand if you enter China you are lead to the article on that country, so we do not use People's Republic of China in category names, but it seems to be consistent we should follow the article name and use Republic of Ireland in all categories that are meant to refer to it. This may be a new development but based on actual article names, Republic of Ireland is the form we should be using.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The word expatriate is a specific reference to a country, therefore Republic is redundant. However, the first category title is uselessly restricted to the period post 1922, and I do not see a reason to categorize differently expatriates before and after this date, especially if there are small numbers. Therefore Category:Expatriates in Ireland and its subcategories are correct. Also note that an expatriate category for an island divided between several countries would not make much sense; we would not speak about foreign expatriates in Hispaniola, or foreign expatriates in the island of Borneo, or in the island of Timor. I seem to recollect that we had a similar discussion for Category:Ambassadors of Ireland: no possible confusion there either with either Northern Island or the island as a whole. Place Clichy (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm just saying that in practice, that's not what exists in the expatriates tree. This is the outlier. And I don't think we need two categories for what (in practice and for the applicable articles) so far is exactly the same status. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the latter unless and until there are pre-1922 expatriates to be categorized. As long as there aren't any, we can only keep the RoI category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or, we could keep doing what we have been doing – which is to have the expatriates categories be "FOOian expatriates in Ireland". These are broader categories than the Republic of Ireland categories because they cover the island regardless of political status. I see no problem with this, and it has the added benefit of requiring no changes to be made. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of course there are reasons to categorize differently before and after 1922, and also before and after 1801. Expatriates enter at the will or at least with consideration of the will of the existing government. We have already deleted Category:Pre-conferderation expatriates in the United Kingdom and we would remove as just plain silly the placement of born in London in an expatriates in Ireland category. The first priority should be to match articles, not to indepdently assume what is or is not ambiguous. Our article on the polity in question uses Republic of Ireland, so this is what should be used in other categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, cannot find discussion of either Category:Pre-conferderation expatriates in the United Kingdom or Category:Pre-confederation expatriates in the United Kingdom. William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are being deliberately obtuse. The United Kingdom is one all the time, it is only Ireland that changes. People are expatriates in polities. We do not have seperate articles covering the seperate boundaries of the United Kingdom. However if they were in the United Kingdom they should be categorized by this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only participant who is irritated that things are being created and moving around during discussion? Also made-up arguments based upon misspelled or non-existent targets? Finally, have really had it with these polity arguments. I'm unaware that anybody in NI calls themselves United Kingdom'ish. William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of new, related categories and the editing of nominated categories is very confusing for editors who come to a discussion and see that things are different than a user has claimed they are. At a bare minimum, users should disclose the changes they have made in the relevant discussion. Johnpacklambert, do you think you could commit to that? Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely the point: Category:Expatriates in Ireland is for the country, not the island. There are no expatriates to Northern Ireland, but only to the UK. There are no expatriates to an island either that's not a country: not to Hispaniola, not to Timor, not to Saint Martin, not to the Isle of Wight, and not to the island of Ireland. Place Clichy (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Both articles relate to recent people in the Republic. There is no need for an all-Ireland category, and there are no NI members. Delete (or upmerge) Category:Latvian expatriates in Ireland as an unnecessary layer. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have essentially been using Irish/Ireland categories for the Republic in many cases. We have few categories explicitly for the Republic. This is probably not a good situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2021 (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 Friedrich Cross
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 Frederickscross or "Friedrich Cross" was issued by Duke Friedrich II of the German Duchy of Anhalt starting in 1914 until the monarchy was abolished in 1918. The recipients are generally non-Anhalt German people who mention the award in passing like with Paul von Hindenburg, Rupprecht Crown Prince of Bavaria, or any other article you want to click on. The Duke also gave the award to himself (see picture, just below the collar). There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any readers interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this clearly meets the definition of the overcategorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2021 (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 Shevchenko 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.
I had to Google this one since there is no main article but this is an award to prominent Ukrainian Canadians issued by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) organisation. The articles are about evenly split between those that mention this award in passing and those that don't mention it at all, so it's clearly not defining. I'm doubtful the award is individually notable so created a redirect and pointed it to a new section in the UCC article where I listified the current category contents for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this clearly meets the defintion of the overcategorzation by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2021 (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.
