The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 17:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

2-page categories

1. Category:Caiguna, Western Australia
2. Category:Cunderdin, Western Australia
3. Category:Merredin, Western Australia
4. Category:Wundowie, Western Australia

3-page categories

1. Category:Cue, Western Australia
2. Category:Nannup, Western Australia

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 6 subcats of Category:Towns in Western Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.

In each case, I have checked that all the articles are already adequately categorised,so no need to merge.

I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.

As with many locations in Quensland and New South Wales, the creation of geographical subcats in Western Australia has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Town and Local Government areas are separate entities with their own unique relationships and histories that can have overlap. They are also part of larger structures of category trees of subjects that are unrelated, to the proposed merger. Gnangarra 12:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus Timrollpickering (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose manually merging:

2-page categories

1. Category:Hazelmere, Western Australia to Category:Perth, Western Australia
2. Category:North Beach, Western Australia to Category:Perth, Western Australia
3. Category:East Victoria Park, Western Australia to Category:Town of Victoria Park
4. Category:Malaga, Western Australia to Category:City of Swan
5. Category:Redcliffe, Western Australia to Category:City of Belmont

3-page categories

1. Category:Bickley, Western Australia to Category:City of Kalamunda
2. Category:Ellenbrook, Western Australia to Category:Perth, Western Australia
3. Category:Kenwick, Western Australia to Category:Perth, Western Australia
4. Category:Peron, Western Australia to Category:City of Rockingham
5. Category:Port Kennedy, Western Australia to Category:City of Rockingham
6. Category:South Fremantle, Western Australia to Category:City of Fremantle
7. Category:Woodbridge, Western Australia to Category:Perth, Western Australia
8. Category:Yanchep to Category:City of Wanneroo
9. Category:Neerabup, Western Australia to Category:City of Wanneroo

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 14 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Perth, Western Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.

In each case, the head article is already in a "Suburbs of Foo" category (so no need to merge), but the other pages should be manually merged to the parent local govt area. In some cases, that's Perth itself; in other cases it's sub-division of Perth.

I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.

As with many New South Wales & Queensland locations, the creation of geographical subcats of Perth has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose While these are indeed small categories I don't believe that they collectively are "Small with no potential for growth". The fact that articles on notable subjects falling within these categories have not been written does not mean they never will. Has the nominator investigated each one thoroughly to establish that they "will never have more than a few members"? The same really goes for all WA suburb categories, but even more so for the Perth ones. Calistemon (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Calistemon, if we took that that approach, then hardly any small category could ever be deleted ... and we'd have squillions of pointless smallcats to impede navigation.
    In this case, the categories are doomed to remain small unless there is some massive upsurge in documenting every last detail of every small suburb. In the unlikely event of such huge expansion, re-creating a few categories would be a trivial exercise ... but meanwhile, we shouldn't be keeping pointless categories in the hope of a meteoritre strike. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl I don't consider them pointless but, rather, more precise. Category:Perth, Western Australia, for example, is rather vague, compare to putting an article into the correct suburb category. I came around to this point of view after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 17#Category:Kwinana, Western Australia. To highlight an example of a category I created, the WWII Peron Battery is within what is now Peron, Western Australia. To throw it into Category:City of Rockingham is potentially historically inaccurate as the City of Rockingham only came into existence many decades after the war. Calistemon (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Calistemon, see WP:CAT:

        The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories

        Navigation is not assisted by dividing up a set into tiny sets; on the contrary, creating those tiny groups impedes navigation.
        Your example of the Peron Battery misunderstands both the topic and the way that geographical categorisation works.
        First, the Peron Battery still exists. It's not in use, but the structure still exists ... so there is no basis for opposing its categorisation in Category:City of Rockingham. It's in the City of Rockingham, right now.
        Secondly, we don't maintain a separate set of geographical categories for every epoch of history. We categorise places and structures and events by the current geographical framework, because that's the only sane way we can track the history of an area. Just read "in Foo Shire" as meaning "in the area currently encompassed by Foo Shire". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Manually merge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Town and Local Government areas are separate entities with their own unique relationships and histories that can have overlap. They are also part of larger structures of category trees of subjects that are unrelated, to the proposed merger. Gnangarra 12:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please note that the following categories have more than 3 pages now: Category:Ellenbrook, Western Australia, Category:Kenwick, Western Australia, Category:South Fremantle, Western Australia, Category:Yanchep and Category:Neerabup, Western Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong object to changing - however the following are in error: -

Category:Hazelmere, Western Australia to Category:Perth, Western Australia -- wrong City of Swan

Category:North Beach, Western Australia to Category:Perth, Western Australia -- wrong City of Stirling

Category:Ellenbrook, Western Australia to Category:Perth, Western Australia -- wrong City of Swan

Category:Kenwick, Western Australia to Category:Perth, Western Australia --- wrong City of Gosnells

Category:Woodbridge, Western Australia to Category:Perth, Western Australia --- wrong City of Swan

JarrahTree 14:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge manually. MER-C 17:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose manually merging:

2-page categories

1. Category:Mirrabooka, Western Australia to Category:City of Stirling

3-page categories

1. Category:Balcatta, Western Australia to Category:City of Stirling
2. Category:Innaloo, Western Australia to Category:City of Stirling

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 3 subcats of Category:Suburbs in the City of Stirling (Western Australia) is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.

In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs in the City of Stirling (so no need to merge), but the other pages should be manually merged to Category:City of Stirling.

I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.

As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats of Perth has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge manually. MER-C 17:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose manually merging:

2-page categories

1. Category:Midvale, Western Australia to Category:Shire of Mundaring
2. Category:Mount Helena, Western Australia to Category:Shire of Mundaring
3. Category:The Lakes, Western Australia to Category:Shire of Mundaring

3-page categories

1. Category:Bellevue, Western Australia to Category:Shire of Mundaring
2. Category:Parkerville, Western Australia to Category:Shire of Mundaring

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 5 subcats of Category:Suburbs and localities in the Shire of Mundaring, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.

In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs and localities in the Shire of Mundaring (so no need to merge), but the other pages should be merged to Category:Shire of Mundaring.

I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.

As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats for Perth has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac15 02:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Indian Holocaust deniers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - only one person in the country of more than 1.3 billion people. Tessaracter (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Holocaust deniers. @Tessaracter: This category is too small to keep, but there is no reason to remove its contents frpm Category:Holocaust deniers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if I understand correctly this person did not deny the Holocaust but rather expressed his admiration for Hitler. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BHG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cannot find any reliable source stating that this individual is a Holocaust denier. (t · c) buidhe 06:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Carlossuarez46 and BrownHairedGirl: Do you have any evidence that this person is a holocaust denier? D4iNa4 (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @D4iNa4, I have not sought any evidence either way, because it would not alter the case for merging. The nominated category is too small, so it should be merged regardless of what happens to the categorisation of that article. --10:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 18:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Newnham, Tasmania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. This subcat of Category:Suburbs of Launceston, Tasmania, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. It currently contains only the head article Newnham, Tasmania plus one other page.

I checked the eponymous articles for links to other articles to expand the categories, but found nothing. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indeed small per nom. Tessaracter (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 18:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

3-page categories

1. Category:Battery Point, Tasmania
2. Category:Bellerive, Tasmania

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Both of these subcats of Category:Suburbs of Hobart, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus two other pages.

In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Hobart (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Hobart (so merger would be wrong).

I checked the eponymous articles for links to other articles to expand the categories, but found nothing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete all Timrollpickering (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Film series endings by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:Film series endings by year and its 44 subcategories per WP:NONDEF and WP:CRYSTALBALL. You can't 100% confirm if a film series is over or not. Some film series' will be put on hiatus and then have a movie produced or be rebooted several years later. This is a meaningless category. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above statement, per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:CRYSTALBALL. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, too speculative and not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A film series isn't like TV series where the instalments make up what is one single work, each film is its own work in comparision.★Trekker (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Film series that precede the 1960s are unlikely to receive revivals. Dimadick (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dimadick: That is a rather CRYSTALBALL reasoning.★Trekker (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you actually bothered to read the articles in these categories? How likely do you think is that a silent film series which ended in 1913 will someday get a revival? Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We cannot determine objectively before which exact year the probability becomes zero. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dimadick: Have you actually bothered to learn how categories should be used after months now? You insist on voting keep on single entry categories and stuff like this. You really should know better. Dimadick I appreciate a lot of your work a ton but you seem to be willfully ignorant on what kind of categories should be had and what should not be had.★Trekker (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @SomeBodyAnyBody05: you still need to list and tag the subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SomeBodyAnyBody05: This CFD should not be closed as "delete" unless you also tag and list the sub-cats. User:DannyS712 may be willing to help, or you can post a request at WP:Bot requests. – Fayenatic London 10:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic london: Sorry for the delay, just saw this as I was going through the pending unclosed discussions and closing some.  Doing... --DannyS712 (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the subcategories have now been tagged for deletion, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=DannyS712+bot+II&start=2020-07-18&end=2020-07-18&title=Special%3AContributions - this discussion should not be closed before 08:44, 25 July 2020 to give the full 7 days for the last categories tagged. No comment on the discussion itself. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition here is the list. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1913 film series endings
• Propose deleting Category:1923 film series endings
• Propose deleting Category:1924 film series endings
• Propose deleting Category:1927 film series endings

Delete all This is WP:NOTDEFINING, and requires WP:CRYSTAL for the categorization. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I havered about this one several times, discarding various !votes I had written. But after a lot of reflection, I think this is relatively simple: both sides are right.

Yes, the keepers are right: these series ended some time ago, and show no sign of revival.

Yes, the deleters are also right: there can never be zero probability of the series restarting. Even if we take the earliest category in this set — Category:1913 film series endings, whose only content is Sherlock Holmes (Éclair film series) — we can't entirely rule out the possibility that someone may decide to make more films in the same style and with the same technology and claim that it's a reboot of the old series after a 107-year interlude. The chances are probably up there with the flying pigs, but they are some tiny value of non-zero.

But we don't need 100% certainty to make a useful category. Remember that per WP:CAT, categories are primarily a navigation tool. They are not statements of eternal truth ... so I don't see any problem in categorising pages which share a defining attribute that appears highly probable. In the unlikely event that someone does make a another Sherlock Holmes Éclair film, we can recategorise.

Personally, I'd be happy to read e.g. Category:1931 film series endings as a shorthand "Film series whose last film was released in 1931, and where no known sequel is planned". We could add a hatnote to the category pages saying something like that.

Alternatively, we could rename the categories to a title which makes no assumptions either way about revival: e.g. Category:Film series with latest release in 1931. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian, Dimadick, *Treker, Marcocapelle, and SomeBodyAnyBody05: please could you read what I wrote above, and consider maybe changing your !vote? I think that something useful is salvageable out of this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand by my delete. Its just not defining and I don't see how it would be managable.★Trekker (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Film series with latest release in 2017 is surely an improvement over the current name, but I still do not consider it to be a defining characteristic. Information about a film series will usually contain a list of films with their year of release and then 2017 just coincidentally happens to be the year of the last film of that list. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I too stand by my delete. I am completely unswayed by WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments for visible categories; please re-read WP:NONDEFINING: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" (emphasis in the original). UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ultimately it's hard to see this as defining. (t · c) buidhe 06:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe this discussion should be relisted since its been about a month now.★Trekker (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Not relisted; everyone else agreed. (non-admin closure) —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Scottish Gaelic language to Category:Scottish Gaelic

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with the primary article Scottish Gaelic. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, two consecutive speedy move requests were opposed, the first time see here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs) 07:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Armbrust and BrownHairedGirl: pinging contributors to CFDS discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the renaming. I'm also not particularly happy about this vexatious nomination. It is full language. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - there's a similar speedy nom (opposed) re Category:History of the English language. Category:Scottish Gaelic seems to be missing a word; Scottish Gaelic what? Oculi (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Scottish Gaelic is always referring to a language, while Scottish Gael refers to an ethnic group. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Creates avoidable ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If the ambiguity is avoidable, then Keep Calm and Carry On with the WP:CONCISE title Category: Scottish Gaelic. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps it is the main article that needs renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Can someone relist this CfD? --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 17:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fish of Algeria to Category:Fish of North Africa
• Propose merging Category:Reptiles of Algeria to Category:Reptiles of North Africa
• Propose merging Category:Reptiles of Egypt to Category:Reptiles of North Africa
• Propose merging Category:Reptiles of Morocco to Category:Reptiles of North Africa
• Propose merging Category:Reptiles of Western Sahara to Category:Reptiles of North Africa

Nominator's rationale: Being found in a particular country is non-defining for species with a wide distribution (e.g. Ringneck blenny or Egyptian cobra).  Lists (e.g. Wildlife of Algeria#Fauna and List of reptiles of Morocco) are a more suitable way to capture this information. Example previous CFDs. DexDor ^(talk) 05:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, in line with how we usually categorize species. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 18:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:North Tamworth, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only 3 pages: the head article North Tamworth, New South Wales and 2 others. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT but manually add the Peel River railway bridge, Tamworth article to Category:Tamworth Regional Council. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 18:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Denman, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only the head article Denman, New South Wales and one other. Both articles are already adequately-categorised, so no need to merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT but add the Merton (New South Wales) article to Category:Muswellbrook Shire. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.