(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 30

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log
< January 29 January 31 >

January 30

edit

Category:Saraswathi temples

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Saraswati goddess article name Redtigerxyz Talk 18:08, 30 January 2016 (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:Slumber Party Girls

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:33, 30 January 2016 (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:The Groggers

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content--eponymous categories have a high threshhold for creation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 30 January 2016 (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:The Bear Quartet

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too few subcats and articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:04, 30 January 2016 (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:Labor in the European Union

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy nom. Per WP:STRONGNAT topics related to the European Union should use British or Irish English. The European Union itself always uses the spelling "Labour" see here and here AusLondonder (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2016 (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 identical Soviet awards issued multiple times to the same person

edit
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: merged (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10 more similar categories
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:NONDEFINING (but not WP:OCAWARD)
These categories all group people by how many times they have received the same exact civil award, not different levels or degrees of an award. This seems trivial because the people who won the Red Bannner of Labour 5 times don't have any more or less in common with each other than those that only won it 2 times, for example. We don't categorize governors who were elected twice differently than those who were elected once or singers with 3 albums differently than singers with 4 albums. (I'm not asserting that winning the underlying award is undefining under WP:OCAWARD.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Folks at 137 as the primary category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Soviet Union. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2016 (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:Space Propulsion Group

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT.
Only contains 1 article, Space Propulsion Group, so it doesn't aid navigation and I don't see any immediate room for growth. (If the topic ever gets up to around 5 articles, no objection to recreating though.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Ohms law as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Space[broken anchor]. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While we have a low threshold of notability for companies, this one seems non-notable even for an article, much less for a category. The article on the Space Propulsion Group is an out-of-date stub that only mentions a single client for this company: NASA. They are not an industry powerhouse, have not affected popular culture at all, and have not accomplished any breakthroughs. What are we supposed to cover about them? Dimadick (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_30&oldid=1219971934"