< February 26 February 28 >

February 27

Category:Ortaköy District, Aksaray

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation from Category:Villages in Ortaköy District, Çorum. – Fayenatic London 23:50, 27 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:Bor (Niğde) District

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard naming. "Province" could be added, but is not widely used within sibling categories in Category:Villages in Turkey by district. – Fayenatic London 23:42, 27 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:Wikipedians willing to provide fourth opinions

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) 01:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Fourth opinion is tagged as ((failed proposal)). * Pppery * it has begun... 21:08, 27 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:Wikipedians who participate in Spanish Translation of the Week

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) 01:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who participate in Spanish Translation of the Week (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week is no longer operating. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:51, 27 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:Wikipedians who participate in Science Collaboration of the Month

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) 01:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who participate in Science Collaboration of the Month (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the month is tagged as ((historical)) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:44, 27 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:Wikipedia Connection members

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) 01:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Connection is tagged as ((historical)) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:38, 27 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:Wikipedia backlog cleaners

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) 01:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too broadly or vaguely defined to be a useful user category. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:35, 27 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:TWiT.tv podcasts

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) 01:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created in 2006 and there has not been a significant increase in TWiT.tv podcasts. Based on a quick Google search for "TWiT.tv podcast" it would be quite difficult to create any more articles about TWiT.tv podcasts. I believe that means the category would be considered a WP:SMALLCAT with no or very little potential for growth. I'm suggesting that it be merged with it's parent category Category:Technology podcasts. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into this further and it appears that I was being too specific when googling "TWiT.tv podcast". When searching "All About Android" "TWiT" "podcast", "The Tech Guy" "TWiT" "podcast", "This Week in Google" "TWiT" "podcast", and "Windows Weekly" "TWiT" "podcast" there is ample evidence that the category could be expanded quite a bit. However, I do think that Dr. Kiki's Science Hour should possibly be removed from the list or at least not counted when considering the size of the category. I think I've changed my mind though, and believe the category is still worth keeping. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:13, 5 March 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:Linux audio podcasts

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) 01:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created in 2007 and there has not been a significant increase of podcasts dedicated to the topic of Linux. Based on a quick Google search for "Linux podcast" it would be quite difficult to create any more articles about Linux podcasts. I believe that means the category would be considered a WP:SMALLCAT with no or very little potential for growth. I'm suggesting that it be merged with it's parent category Category:Technology podcasts. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been taking a look at the different articles in this category and I'm not sure any of them present sources that would suggest they are notable. The only two that might meet Wikipedia's standards of WP:GNG are LugRadio and Linux Voice. I'll look into potentially finding some reliable sources for these podcasts, but if I can't I'll open AfDs. If only a couple are notable enough for articles I would assume the category would no longer be a borderline case of WP:SMALLCAT. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the articles and I think they are all just barely notable enough for Wikipedia, but they all need a lot of work. I think instead of deleting the category perhaps we should just rename it to Category:Linux podcasts. I don't see any reason to limit the category to Category:Audio podcasts when none of the sources take the time to differentiate and having other formats like Category:Video podcasts would increase the scope of the category (albeit a very small increase) so that it's less likely to continue being a WP:SMALLCAT. What do you think of this proposal Marcocapelle? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:45, 4 March 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.

Parallel Britannia and United Kingdom 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/merge. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as two duplicate trees, and rename per WP:C2C, consistent with parent Category:Buildings and structures in Roman Britain and with siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 27 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:Welsh-speaking academics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
alternative
  • Propose purging and renaming to Category:Welsh-speaking instructors beyond Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — only those notably exclusively teaching using only the Welsh language who are not members of institutions in Wales.
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING WP:OCTRIVIA Academics are not usually categorized by the languages they speak; indeed the norm in Category:People by language and occupation is to classify occupations utilizing the language itself, such as grammarians, lexicographers, singers, translators, and writers. This seems to be the only "-speaking academics" among the occupations.
Moreover, the headnote states:
This category includes academics who speak the Welsh language, regardless of whether they lecture or write in the Welsh language.
Thus it has become a catch-all for Welsh-speakers who would not otherwise be categorized under occupation. Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By nationality and occupation, not a language that is incidental to the occupation.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And some universities in the Netherlands teach partly in Dutch. So what? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader can have this information in the articles, with adequate sourcing. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grutness I'm surprised as an experienced categorizer that you consider these WP:DEFINING: "reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." That is, we should categorize all mathematics professors in every country around the world by all languages they speak? All engineering professors? All geography professors? All philosophy professors? Note that these are not languages used in teaching or writing by these professors.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @William Allen Simpson: In order to assess this category, I looked at ten of the articles in it at random. Seven of those articles were about academics for whom the majority of published works were in Welsh (i.e., yes, they are used in writing). Another was for a linguist whose specialist area was the Welsh language. Another was for a collector and collator of traditional welsh folk music. The last was for a holder of the Oxford Chair in Celtic studies whose most important published work was translations of medieval Welsh poetry and prose. Seems pretty defining to me. These are not engineering or mathematics professors who simply happen to speak a language -they are academics for whom knowledge of the Welsh language is integral to their studies and publications. Grutness...wha? 15:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is about whether language is defining for this occupation everywhere in every language. I've looked at them trying to discern whether the reliable sources mentioned the language in passing, or it was a reason they were notable. I've concluded the former. You've merely shown that some are miscategorized.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that is not what this discussion is about - how can it be, since not every language is a minority language? Deb (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For many people in this category it is a defining characteristic that they wrote books in Welsh, hence they do properly belong in Category:Welsh-language writers. Whether they spoke Welsh in teaching is only mentioned in passing, if at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For all Welsh-speaking people, their language is a defining characteristic. You can ask any of them. It's even got a section in the current UK census. Deb (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking them is OR. And we don't categorize by anything that is in the UK census. Please stick to the criteria in WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the concept of majority/minority languages. People whose medium of work (be it, writing, singing, academics, etc.) is "Fooish" it matters not to me whether or not "Fooish" is the majority where those people work or not. I know WP doesn't consistently follow this convention (compare, e.g., Category:English-language writers with Category:Dutch-language writers). But someone who speaks "Fooish" but writes/sings/etc. in English, the Fooish-speaking is irrelevant. Similarly, the argument about XXX-speaking politicians (apparently, Welsh being the only extant example) is misguided. One can point to many constituencies in the US where the ability to speak Spanish, Tagalog, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, etc. may be a factor in connecting with voters, but is ultimately undefining for the politico as virtually all campaign in English too, and if elected to notable positions here govern/legislate/argue/debate, whatever in English. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This also avoids the issue of how well someone speaks that language and reliable sources saying that. "Ich bin ein Berliner" comes to mind; so JFK to be added to a German-speaking politicians category? Yikes Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a reasonable attempt to get a broader consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would also be reasonable since this is defining of only a subcategory. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:08, 5 March 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.

People from Islands (regional unit)

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: option B merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OPTION A
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division or to island. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Islands regional unit is one of the most preposterous Greek administrative divisions. It was fine having it as a supercategory of other, more specific, ones, but it shouldn't have direct articles as members. You could say it's a "gerrymandering" type of division. There is no real geographic, cultural, or historical connection between these areas. I can't think of a good alternative merge right now, but I think it would be better to finish with the mainland categories before dealing with the Greek islands, which require a different approach anyway. --Antondimak (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a weird administrative division indeed. For sure the first nominated category can be merged without any issues, since it is a container category. I could imagine an alternative merge of Category:People from Methana to Category:People from Troizinia-Methana and Category:People from Troezen to Category:People from Troizinia-Methana, so we leave one 3rd-level administrative alone because it is the only mainland part of this regional unit. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OPTION B (per discussion above)
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.

People from Kozani (regional unit)

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, but no consensus to merge Category:People from Askio. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Kozani (43,000 people), Ptolemaida (32,000 people), Siatista (5,500 people), Servia, Greece (3,500 people) and Vlasti (meanwhile depopulated). The nomination does include people from Askio, Kozani, this is not a populated place but a handful of villages in the Askio mountain range and its eponymous 4th level administrative division. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to Eordaia, there is also Category:Ancient Eordaeans. I think it's useful to group modern Eordeans together with the ancient ones, and not have the settlements of modern Eordaia be scattered accross Category:People from Kozani (regional unit) as sister categories to "Ancient Eordaians".
In Kozani (municipality) we similarly have Category:Ancient Elimiotes‎, where the situation is similar. --Antondimak (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distance in km is an irrelevant criterion. Athens is by far the most populous city in Greece so obviously distances are bigger as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am open to an alternative upmerge proposal of Category:Ancient Eordaeans to Category:Upper Macedonians and Category:People from Eordaia in order to keep the latter. But honestly when reading the articles it is not always clear that they were from Eordaia at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you saying it's not clear in the articles in "Ancient Eordaians" that the people they refer to were from Eordaia?
  • For example the article about Ptolemy I Soter tells that his father was from Eordaia but it does not tell about Ptolemy himself. He may well have been at court all the time in his youth. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I see now. There generally seem to be more "relaxed" standards for categorising ancients, given the lack of specific information. I don't this should influence how we handle the category though. --Antondimak (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the lack of information they are fine as Ancient Macedonians without assignment to any particular location (to be discussed separately though). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't understand why an upmerge of Category:Ancient Eordaeans would be necessary to keep Category:People from Eordaia (assuming there weren't any problems with the articles in "Ancient Eordaeans"). It would just make everything more confusing. --Antondimak (talk) 15:24, 28 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.

People from Laconia

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, but no consensus to merge Category:People from East Mani. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case Sparta, Peloponnese (17,000 people, ancient city). The nomination includes East Mani with 9 articles, since East Mani is not a populated place but a collection of different villages. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep East Mani East Mani has existed since before I started working on the categories. The area is culturally significant, as any other Greek discussant could confirm (see also Maniots). Mani in general has its own culture, which is significantly distinct from the rest of the Peloponnese, and its own dialect, which is more similar to that of Crete (it was even closer to the old dialect of Athens, before it went extinct due to it being made the capital) than the rest of Laconia. Despite the East/West distinction being significant in Mani, East Mani is also part of Laconia, while Mani as a whole is divided between Laconia and Messenia. Therefore it makes sense for it to be a subcategory of "People from Laconia". --Antondimak (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We would then need to upmerge to "Maniots" and include this category in both Laconia and Messenia (which would be inaccurate). This category is for the Maniots from Laconia, and "West Mani" is for those from Messenia, so they should probably be kept (apart from the cultural distinctions between East and West Mani being significant anyway). --Antondimak (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now I have added Category:Maniots as a second merge target. Whether that category should be split is a different discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You accidentally included Molaoi in the list, despite it having 5 articles and you not tagging it for merging (similar to what happened with Karditsa). --Antondimak (talk) 10:15, 27 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:Books about Buddhism in the Heian period

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: withdrawn Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sounds better and falls in line with similar categories like Category:Diaries of the Heian period
I see, is there any way to unlist this rename request? Daiichi1 (talk) 07:52, 27 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:Australian rules footballers' wives and girlfriends

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Australian rules footballers' wives and girlfriends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Weird mix of lesbian footballers married to other footballers, sportspeople married to (some very low profile) footballers and only 1 or 2 women who fit the English celebrity stereotype of a WAG. Use wikidata to find spousal connections if you need to. Not this cat. Poorly defined qualifications, no parent article exists, not even a mention in WAGs#Other sports. WP:NONDEFINING for most of these women. The-Pope (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what it seems to be. Delete - RevelationDirect (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they're saying the category is not a defining characteristic, because it has a mix of many different sets of unrelated people. Nothing homophobic at all about that. The "weird mix" comment clearly refers to the rest of the comment i.e. it doesn't use the standard definition of WAGs. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing they have in common is that they "wives or girlfriends of Australian rules footballers". Exactly what it says on tin. Djln Djln (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I demand that Djln retract's that personal attack on me. Absolutely nothing homophobic or sexist in my nomination statement. It's purely descriptive. I found this cat when the captain of my favourite team was added to it. She's married to another one of the players. But neither of them are notable for being a wife to a footballer. They are notable because they ARE footballers. The "weird mix" is referencing the multiple reasons for being placed in the cat. For only a few, it is defining. For most, it may be factually correct, but not at all defining, and definitely not with the WAG connotations that the parent cat/English centric article focuses on. The-Pope (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can demand all you like. There will be no retraction on my part until you withdraw opening statement. There are plenty of articles about people who are in categories for which they are not famous. See teachers, doctors, lawyers etc. Djln Djln (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is it relevant which partner is more famous then the other or if the WAG is more famous then there partner. Djln Djln (talk) 14:06, 28 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:Perpetual travellers

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Perpetual travellers
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:BLPCAT
A Perpetual traveler (PT) is a term for someone who intentionally lives in multiple countries. The category only has two articles, none of which mention this term, but there is certainly expansion potential. The problem here is that this term has strong connotations of borderline legal tax avoidance schemes. Indeed, "Prior taxpayer" is an alternate name for the concept. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 27 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:Stroke survivors

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Stroke survivors
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT and maybe WP:PERFCAT)
We have a category for Category:Deaths from stroke so this is for people that survived strokes. There are 300+ articles in the category which generally mention having a stroke later in their lives. That could be just the beginning though: according to the main article strokes are the 2nd leading reason for death globally and about 17 million survive them per year. During the course of lifetime, people will have multiple non-fatal health issues and this seems too common to be defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 27 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.
More