< July 8
July 10 >

July 9

Category:Archaeological cultures of Southwestern Europe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Category:Archaeological cultures of Southwestern Europe

Category:Urban Projects of RAJUK

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1-2 entries. Estopedist1 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2023 (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:Viceroys in Ukraine

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) (t · c) buidhe 02:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Viceroys in Ukraine to Category:Governors in Ukraine
Nominator's rationale: rename, "vice-roy" is not a common term for governors in Ukraine. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion makes sense too. Ukraine clearly did not exist at the time and these were governors of the Russian Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alt Delete per Laurel Lodged. This is anachronistic. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2023 (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:MUD texts

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:Internet-based works and Category:Multi-user dungeon. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two entries. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:47, 9 July 2023 (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:MU* servers

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:MUD servers. and Category:MU* games. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 3 entries. This is an area in which Wikipedia's coverage is gradually contracting as non-notable subjects get deleted, so I see no clear potential for growth. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:46, 9 July 2023 (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:Educational MUDs

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 both targets. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two entries. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:43, 9 July 2023 (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:Witnesses in the Nuremberg Trials

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Category:Witnesses in the Nuremberg Trials

Category:Rulers of Thuringia

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:Monarchs of Thuringia. – Fayenatic London 20:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D List of monarchs of Thuringia per BOLD rename per precedents Bavaria, Württemberg etc. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with marking anyone from margrave (or even count) to emperor as monarch. It is factually incorrect. It is not true that they all had sovereign power. I agree that "rulers" is suboptimal. In many cases the person on the throne did not rule, especially those who died as minors. Articles can easily be categorized in, say, Category:Margraves of Austria, Category:Archdukes of Austria, Category:Emperors of Austria, but I have no idea how to elegantly deal with the titles of lists. List of margraves, dukes, archdukes and emperors of Austria is cumbersome enough, not to mention the cases when we have to account for women too. Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that they all had sovereign power. Why not? Because they often had kings above them? Well, kings often had emperors above them, as well, such as Frederick Augustus III of Saxony being under Wilhelm II, German Emperor. Clearly, he was not sovereign (unlike his precedessor John of Saxony had been until 1871). But that doesn't stop us from putting Frederick Augustus III of Saxony in Category:Kings of Saxony, which is in Category:Saxon monarchs. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess what I'm saying is that some dynasties below the royal level were originally not sovereign, but acquired their sovereignty, and are then framed in historiography (and categorised on Wikipedia) as "monarchies". Likewise, some dynasties at the royal level could be sovereign, but lose their sovereignty when they join empires and "surrender" their sovereignty to that emperor, and yet this doesn't stop anyone from continuing to frame and categorise those royal-but-not-sovereign-anymore dynasties as "monarchies". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The List of German monarchs in 1918 includes the Emperor, Kings, Grand Dukes, Dukes, and Princes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna It has been 1 month. Would you please like to respond to what I have said and asked you? Particularly that per WP:SOVEREIGN #6 "rulers" below the rank of king are still "monarchs"? Thanks in advance. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Monarchs. All the princes of the German Empire were ostensibly sovereign and before that all imperially immediate states of the HRE had a limited form of sovereignty (IR scholars regularly cite the Peace of Westphalia as the origin of the modern system of state sovereignty). The comparison with the count of Valois (below) is flawed, because Valois was not a state. Furius (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Wikipedia guideline does not say that rulers below the rank of king are all monarchs, nor do Wikipedia guidelines set definitions of English language words. Please reread it. To put the counts of Valois in Category:Monarchs of Valois would be absurd. Surtsicna (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Monarch" does not mean "king". Kings and queens are just the most commonly cited examples of "monarchs", they don't have a monopoly on the term.
Handbook of Imperial Germany (2009) p. 70:
  • Duchy of Anhalt: hereditary constitutional monarchy
  • Duchy of Brunswick: hereditary limited constitutional monarchy
  • Etc. In fact, all of the states identified as "monarchies" on this page were below the level of kingdom.
Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, "monarch" does not mean "king", and no, not every ruler is a monarch. Specifically, the dukes and landgraves of Thuringia were not monarchs of Thuringia. Surtsicna (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the dukes and landgraves of Thuringia were not monarchs of Thuringia.[citation needed] Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not at all. The discussion is about whether (ruling) dukes and counts in the Holy Roman Empire count as monarchs. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: Fooian monarchs or Monarchs of Foo (Suggestion B / Monarchs of Foo principle): Category:Alemannic rulers was Renamed Category:Alemannic monarchs (some were identified as "kings", others as "dukes"). This is what I as nom propose, and currently supported by Furius and Laurel Lodged, but some others object to.
  • B: Nobility of Foo: Category:Rulers of Hesse was Alt Renamed Category:Nobility of Hesse per Marcocapelle's I am not entirely certain if counts and dukes should be under monarchs too. He made the same argument here (which I previously supported as a second choice, then retracted, and now I'm confused haha).
  • C: Putting a "Rulers" category in the "Monarchs" tree and a non-monarchs tree: A compromise is being proposed to Keep Category:Rulers of Bamburgh, but Add parent Category:Monarchs in the British Isles (for the early "rulers" of Bamburgh) next to the existing parents Category:Anglo-Saxon earls and Category:Earls of Northumbria (for the later "rulers" of Bamburgh). This is not ideal, but a pragmatic compromise which I have proposed for a series of "rulers" whose status, function and titles is difficult to reconstruct, not least because it appears to have shifted significantly over time.
  • D: Splitting "Rulers" lists/cats into monarchs lists/cats and non-monarchs lists/cats: I split off List of kings of Waterford from List of rulers of Waterford, and Renamed the latter List of mayors of Waterford. Kings and mayors are two very different positions, and I think most people will agree mayors are not "rulers". (Under the most recent Local Government Reform Act 2014, so far the mayors of Waterford are indirectly elected by becoming head of the Waterford City and County Council after local elections, but it is possible to enable direct election of mayors in the Republic of Ireland. Hardly "rulers".).
  • E: Renaming "Lists of rulers of Foo" to "Lists of [monarchs] and [non-monarchs] of Foo": I renamed List of rulers of Clandeboye to List of kings and lords of Clandeboye. This division between monarchs and non-monarchs already existed before I found the list. Splitting the list into two separate lists didn't seem necessary and even a bad idea; all holders of the titles were members of the O'Neill dynasty, so unlike the mayors of Waterford, they were a continuous genealogy. Therefore, replacing rulers with kings and lords seemed the best option.
All five options could potentially resolve this CfR (and related "rulers" CfRs) as well. I'm open to all five, but it's more important what you think about it than I as nom do. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, Surtsicna, Furius, and Laurel Lodged: notifying all participants so far of these recent developments. Have you got a preference for A, B, C, D, or E, in order to resolve this CfR? Of course, you could also leave your !votes unchanged (but still express a preference for other similar current or future CfRs). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:37, 9 July 2023 (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:Maccabiah Games footballers

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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Maccabiah Games competitors by year, participants at the Maccabiah Games are almost never split by year and sport. General categories for footballers, cyclists, etc. at games (e.g. Category:Olympic footballers) are typically only created when the competitors are in fact split, which does not apply here. For example, see Category:Football at the Central American and Caribbean Games, Category:Football at the South American Games and Category:Football at the Summer Universiade, where no general footballer category exists, only one for medalists. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:26, 9 July 2023 (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:Wikidata redirects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Category:Wikidata redirects

National Basketball Association venues by team

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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

Nominator's rationale: Merge or delete (see alt) per WP:OCVENUE. Category:National Basketball Association venues is allowed to remain per exception in the guideline. See related: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_5#Category:National_Hockey_League_venues_by_team. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is to merge, then a dual merge to the team cat makes sense. (If the consensus is to delete though, it's likely because the team is non-defining and such a merge would not make sense.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the NBA team based there is a defining characteristic of the venue. For almost every one of these venues it would be in the top 3 uses. Even somewhere as multi-use as MSG would be described by the man in the street as being used for: concerts, maybe boxing, Rangers/NHL (so include both), Knicks/NBA (so include both). And taking it the other way, it would be utterly bizarre for the topic category for a team to not have its current and former venues on the list of related articles. Crowsus (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The generic notices don't seem to be moving the needle so I asked the editor to undo the emptying directly on their talk page. I assume this is just a misunderstanding of the process. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RevelationDirect. I forget that often editors come and comment in a deletion discussion and never return to read other comments like mine, chiding them. But sometimes the emptiers don't even participate in the CFD. AGF, I assume they think they are helping but it's kind of a waste of CFD participants' time to evaluate categories that are emptied. What if the decision is to Keep them? They rarely get repopulated. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The decision will not be to Keep these categories. The only reason it wasn't concluded last week is because I voted for Merge rather than Delete. Their now being empty as I amended Fooville Fooers venues to Fooville Fooers has no bearing on the deletion itself as they are already at National Basketball Association venues so this By team group can be deleted with no complication. Crowsus (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crowsus: It does have a bearing on the nomination which is still open, as are all the ones on this page. "Delete" is a different outcome than "Merge" and both iVotes are valid. While Wikipedia often encourages bold edits, the WP:CfDClosings and WP:CLOSE both describe the consensus building process which aren't being honored here by implementing your preferred outcome. Would you be willing to revert your edits as we await this nominations closure? - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah OK Crowsus (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thank you very much. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's them repopulated, I think. If any are still empty, let me know and I'll have a look Crowsus (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Crowsus. I think you got all of the ones mentioned in this CFD except Category:Philadelphia Warriors venues. There are other empty venue categories that are in the CSD C1 category (Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion) but they are not part of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's them back (they were also 76ers venues so I missed the double amendment required). Crowsus (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:13, 9 July 2023 (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:Georgian family trees

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:Family trees of Georgian monarchs. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Georgian family trees to Category:Georgian monarchs family trees
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual category contents. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copied this wording from the article titles, but a less awkward wording is perfectly fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2023 (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.

Assassinated monarchs by type

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. Unopposed nomination. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Assassinated monarchs by type
  • Propose deleting Category:Assassinated chieftains‎ (1 P)
  • Propose deleting Category:Assassinated emperors‎ (2 C)
  • Propose deleting Category:Assassinated khans‎ (1 P)
  • Propose deleting Category:Assassinated kings‎ (1 C)
  • Propose deleting Category:Assassinated kings by continent‎ (1 C)
  • Propose deleting Category:Assassinated Asian kings‎ (1 P)
  • Propose deleting Category:Assassinated sultans‎ (1 P)
Nominator's rationale: delete apparently abandoned category scheme. Note that murdered monarchs are already diffused by nationality and by century, so this is not a matter of a too large parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2023 (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 Christianity editorial disputes

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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, not enough content to keep this as a separate category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very weird category. Also Category:Sep 2007 Jewish Christianity editorial disputes too, I presume? Support merger. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:38, 15 July 2023 (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:Kievan Rus' royalty

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:Nobility from Kievan Rus'. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Nobles of Kievan Rus' by title is a redundant layer, and its child Category:Kievan Rus' royalty isn't really about 'royalty', but nobility. We could rename Category:Kievan Rus' royalty to Category:Nobility from Kievan Rus' (step 1), and downmerge the other into it (step 2). The resultant category would serve as a parent to Category:Princes from Kievan Rus' and Category:Princesses from Kievan Rus' (currently in CfR, to be renamed from Category:Kievan Rus' princesses).
Also, 'royalty' is pretty useless for categorisation purposes, see User:Nederlandse Leeuw/People from Kievan Rus' category tree#Rationale. Therefore, re-parent to Category:Medieval nobility and Category:Nobility in Europe. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is agreement to merge Category:Nobles of Kievan Rus' by title to Category:Kievan Rus' royalty, but no consensus to rename the merged category to Category:Nobility from Kievan Rus'.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:48, 9 July 2023 (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:Maritime incidents related to the European migrant crisis

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Category:Maritime incidents related to the European migrant crisis

Category:Asset stripping

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Category:Asset stripping

Category:Political prisoners by country

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Category:Political prisoners by country

Category:Video games scored by Ian Taylor

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) Qwerfjkltalk 10:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To my knowledge, Runescape is the only game that would fit this category. He worked for Jagex (Runescape) from 1999 to 2021. This category was created around the day he was (Redacted) (which does not make this a notable category). ((replyto|SilverLocust)) (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not match any person named Ian Taylor for whom we have an article, and he is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia except in passing. I have also redacted BLP-violating content in the nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry about the BLP oversight. I didn't think to include a reference for that on a non-mainspace page. I'll just leave that out rather than link to one of the news articles. ((replyto|SilverLocust)) (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2023 (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:Carmona, Cavite

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) Qwerfjkltalk 10:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:13, 9 July 2023 (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 Gaudeamus International Interpreters Award

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Gaudeamus International Interpreters Award
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEFINING
The Dutch Gaudeamus Foundation hosts an international music festival that includes the Gaudeamus International Interpreters Award which is a competition for interpretation of contemporary music. The recipients of this award generally mention it in passing with other honours so it doesn't seem defining. The recipient are already listed right here in main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2023 (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:Gifford Lectures

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Gifford Lectures
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT, WP:OCAWARD, and WP:NONDEFINING
The Gifford Lectures is an annual lectures series that rotates between four Scottish universities and this category groups people who gave the talk. It's considered an honour to be invited but this performance isn't treated as defining in the biography articles, generally getting mentioned in passing. If you look at the speakers who also won the Nobel Prize, it becomes crystal clear which award is defining and which is not: Albert Schweitzer, Henri Bergson, Roger Penrose, Werner Heisenberg. The category contents are already listed right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2023 (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