The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:single upmerge per
WP:NONDEF, "efficiency" is not a defining characteristic here. Many articles don't even mention this term, and if mentioned it's mostly in passing and in different meanings. Afaics the category is mostly about tax-related human behaviour (e.g. tax avoidance, capital flight) but there is too little coherence to keep.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge for Now I'm not closed minded to a possible subject area here, but it first it needs a main article to define the inclusion criteria.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 12:58, 24 December 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:Economics of uncertainty
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, redundant category layer that contains only one topic. Furthermore the category doesn't have a main article,
Economics of uncertainty doesn't exist.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Several sub-categories were misplaced under
Category:Decision theory. I've moved them up. If I get time, I'll add some more subcategories and write a short main article
JQ (
talk) 02:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your help. Withdraw nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:51, 23 December 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:Armenian people of Cameroonian descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus.
Cerebellum (
talk) 14:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is empty. Hovhannes Karapetyan 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep. It only became empty because the user removed the subcategory
Category:Cameroonian emigrants to Armenia from it. For convenience, it's a standard set-up in the intertwining of these category schemes to make every "FOOian emigrants to BAR" a subcategory of the corresponding "BARian people of FOOian descent" category.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
It's not a very intuitive standard though. You're either a migrant or a descendent of a migrant, these two statuses are mutually exclusive.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Not really, at least in my mind. An emigrant to a place becomes ipso facto a person of that place that is of the descent from whence he came. Seems pretty straightforward to me. If the parent/child relationship of the emigrants and descent categories is abandoned, however, it will lead to a fair bit of duplication of categorization for articles people who were emigrants, because users tend to want to categorize them as emigrants to the new place and as people of the new place of descent from the old place. So it simplifies things to just include the emigrants categories and then make it a subcategory of the other.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- The content of the emigrants category is two footballers who played for an Armenian club, probably without becoming a national; they became Armenian residents, but not Armenian people. This is not a category likely to get to get populated, but if it does, it can be recreated. The difficulty may be how we parent the emigrants, but I feel sure that a solution can be found.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: How is a resident of a place not a national of it? Being a permanent resident of a place is pretty much a textbook legal definition of a national. There is a difference between nationality and citizenship. Wikipedia categories generally deal in nationality, not in citizenship. Nationality is broader and includes citizens and residents of a place.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)reply
By national, I meant citizen. In my country, nationality is obtained by becoming a citizen through naturalisation; it is not through mere immigration. My guess is that the one person concerned became an Armenian resident for a time, while remaining a Cameroonian citizen (and thus having that nationality). In the same way Mexicans do not gain US nationality by swimming the Rio Grande.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: Does your country not have a form of permanent residency that is short of citizenship? At international law, nationality is defined by citizenship or permanent residency and never by citizenship alone. People can have one citizenship and still have multiple nationalities. I would be very surprised if your country has citizenship as the only state of legal nationality. We're not talking about people who immigrate illegally by "swimming the Rio Grande". A Mexican citizen who has legal permanent residency in the United States is a national of both Mexico and the United States. Similarly, if these men lived as legal residents in Armenia, they could have been nationals of Armenia and Cameroon simultaneously. (It's complicated slightly by residency rules of EU citizens in EU states (if that's where your country is), but in my legal journeys I've never encountered a state that limits its nationality to citizens only.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete unnecessary fooian descent category - does anyone have
WP:RSes that these folks are "Armenian people" or just passed through - playing for an Armenian soccer team is not unlike playing a concert tour in a county, so is a well-traveled musician like Elton John a "Fooian person of British descent" for each country he's toured?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 23:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and repopulate. The arguments that these people do not count as "nationals" do not accurately reflect what the term means.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
What chance is there of us ever getting more than one person, who was for a time a legal resident, meaning that this is likely always to be a one-member category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:23, 7 January 2017 (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:Moveable holidays (Christmas date based)
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 conensus. @
BDD: if you can live with
Mangoe's alternate proposal, consider renominating with the alternate names and perhaps we can get a consensus.
Cerebellum (
talk) 19:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This
natural phrasing seems like a better alternative to this awkward disambiguation. Some still need disambiguation based on the names of the holidays' articles. --
BDD (
talk) 14:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
rename all to Category:Holidays based on the date of fooexcept the first: if they are based on a changing date, then they are necessarily moveable. The first one is a problem since the date of Christmas is fixed.Mangoe (
talk) 17:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Probably the latter will still suggest that the moveability is based on the date of Christmas, for editors who haven't been aware of this discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:50, 29 December 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:Sequel films by country
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. --
BDD (
talk) 14:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Should sequel categories be categorised on the basis of language? I ask this because I see a parent category titled "Sequel films by country", but not "Sequel films by language". Kailash29792(talk) 09:10, 22 December 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:Tamil sequel films
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. Consensus-formation not helped by the lack of a clear rationale, or explanation of why the nominator sought deletion rather than merger. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 03:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Should sequel categories be categorised on the basis of language? I ask this because I see a parent category titled "Sequel films by country", but not "Sequel films by language". Kailash29792(talk) 09:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
I've bundled these nominations. --
BDD (
talk) 14:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
BDD, has a decision been reached? This nomination has been tinkering for a month without any progress. Kailash29792(talk) 03:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The bundling was only a procedural move on my part. I'll note that CfD often has large backlogs, but in this case, there's
WP:SILENCE, and it's not clear what action you desire. It says "propose deleting", but that's boilerplate language. Your nomination statement just asks a question, so potential closers may not be clear on what should happen. --
BDD (
talk) 14:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
KeepI don't see any reason to delete. --
Cerebellum (
talk) 21:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Now I say "Tamil sequel films" must be deleted because the majority of films in the category are not true sequels (most of them are simply promoted as sequels to cash in on their "predecessor's" popularity). Though some films in "Hindi sequel films" are true sequels, I still oppose the existence of the category. There isn't even a parent category for sequels on the basis of language. That's why there isn't
Category:English sequel films or
Category:English-language sequel films. Kailash29792(talk) 03:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Kailash29792: Thanks for the reply! I've thought about this a little more in the light of your comments and changed my mind - I originally thought this category would be useful for navigation, but it seems unlikely that a reader would specifically want to find a Tamil-language sequel film. If they want to find a film to watch in Tamil (or Hindi), they can just go to
Category:Tamil-language films. So I have no objection to deletion, though I think a merge would be better per
Marcocapelle. The issue of false sequels could be addressed either by removing false sequels from the category if there is consensus for that, or starting a separate deletion discussion for
Category:Indian sequel films. Personally though I think we can consider a film a sequel if it is marketed as such, even if there is a new storyline. --
Cerebellum (
talk) 22:08, 10 February 2017 (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:Theatre in the United States
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.
Rationale: Per
WP:ENGVAR - In American English, the preferred spelling is "theater". In fact, according to
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling: The Columbia University Guide to Standard American English states that "theater" is used except in proper names.עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 04:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose now per Hmains. I'd prefer to have evidence, but it sounds right. And at any rate, why bother?
Stevie is the man!Talk •
Work 19:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose – this nomination has been at cfd many times, eg
in 2009, where there are links to several previous discussions.
Oculi (
talk) 20:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Even if I had known about the 2009 nomination when I made this one (I didn't), it would still be of small relevance, since consnesus can change and the issue hadn't been discussed since October 2009.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is a correct American English for 'legitimate theatre' which is for plays and the like. Completely different from movie theaters. The only thing that has changed since 2009 is that even more American establishments use the spelling 'theatre' in their names. Read the underlying articles before making such nominations.
Hmains (
talk) 05:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename The AP Style book says to use "er" unless it's a formal noun and
this web site which was the first hit on "theater vs. theatre" has a graph midway down claiming this is more common in the US. I don't feel strongly though, "theatre" is present in the US too.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose – I came here because I noticed the CfD at
Category:Theatre companies in New York City where it stands 44:30 in favour of "–re". One level up, at
Category:Theatre companies in New York, it's 17:4. The proposal is not unambiguously supported by common usage and serves no purpose. The proposer's rationale is flawed as the "–re" spelling is widely used in AmEng. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 07:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose per my comments above. Actual references from/about
reliable sources obviously trumps editorial
opinion. - jc37 01:41, 24 January 2017 (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 Marxists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: A whole category for one person? I think this is redundant and is only being used for political self promotion rather than as a means of categorizing people. Besides, a category with a single article does not necessitate its own category.
Geelongite (
talk) 04:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
keep as part of the "by nation" tree.
Mangoe (
talk) 17:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - this type of situation is an ecxeption to
WP:SMALLCAT, since the subdevision by country is necessary here.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
keep for the obvious and stated reasons above A perfectly correct category
Hmains (
talk) 05:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep --mainly to parent the two sub-cats.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep – the category has 90+ articles.
Oculi (
talk) 15:22, 25 December 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:Films set in Snowflake, Arizona
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Breakfast restaurants
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The sole article placed in this new category is not a restaurant that is "breakfast only" or one that even specializes in "breakfast foods". It simply is one that now has "breakfast hours". Would we really want to categorize every restaurant in this category that is open during "breakfast hours", whatever that may (rather arbitrarily) be defined as? Or every restaurant that sells "breakfast foods"? I could understand (perhaps) a category for "breakfast-only" restaurants, if such things exist, but this category is not that in its current form.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I think the creator was working with the assumption that "breakfast food" is a genre or type of food like "fast-casual Mexican" or "Thai food" but I don't think the inclusion criteria for this are ever going to be clear enough. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 07:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Koavf: (as creator) I see your point, but there are restaurants that serve only breakfast and nothing else. Sorry, I cannot populate this category at the moment, I am too busy trying to save content from deletion to do any productive work.
Ottawahitech (
talk) 11:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)please
ping mereply
Delete we don't categorize restaurants by what hours they keep.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 23:27, 29 December 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:People paid by Big Pharma to schill
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Prior to seeing this category, I was unaware of the extensive number of "joke" categories found in
Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians. (Actually, most if not all of them appear to have been created quite recently by
User:Rathfelder.) I also don't know what recent consensus or guidelines might say about the existence of such categories, but all of them at least appear to use "Wikipedian" rather than "People" in the category name, so this one should too.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
stop messing with peoples Talk pagesRoxy the dog.bark 10:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Should we change the spelling to the correct "shill", or is that part of the joke? --
BDD (
talk) 14:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Good point—if it's part of the joke, I clearly don't get it.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
In my defence I should say that all these categories existed as red links at the bottom of user pages. I merely regularised them. And there are lots more like that on user pages. I have no strong views as to whether there should be such categories. But I think if users can put themselves in categories those categories should be treated like other categories.
Rathfelder (
talk) 19:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong delete, perhaps speedy delete, along with everything else in
Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians - This category blatantly violates
WP:USERCAT. A rename is entirely inappropriate. User categories are intended for helping collaboration between users to improve the encyclopedia. This is a joke category, explicitly disallowed and highlighted as an
inappropriate type of user category.
VegaDark (
talk) 05:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment (nom). I'm also OK with deletion. It does seem obvious that there's nothing in
WP:USERCAT that would support its creation.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. It is pretty obvious to delete this and similar category pages. However it looks as if the categories on the user pages have deliberately been mentioned there as redlinks. Hence the question is whether the category page is going to be deleted in such a way that the category remains visible as a redlink on user pages (i.e. restore the situation before
User:Rathfelder created the categories, which is presumably the option that
User:Roxy the dog would prefer) or delete the categories from the user pages as well. I don't know if we have any precedent for this.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
I can't think of any precedents of this sort. But I would think that it would be OK for users to keep the redlinks on their user pages. Aren't we in general pretty flexible with what users include on their user pages? It's only when in spills over into other non-user space, such as category space (as here), where it actually becomes an issue. I'm OK to users to have these "jokes" on their pages. I don't find most of them that funny, but "different strokes for different folks", as they say.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
A user has
been threatened with a block for re-adding themselves to a user category, but that was a container category so it was particularly disruptive. Personally I'd be in support of disallowing users to be in redlinks if there has been a previous CfD resulting in delete for that category - the redlink shows up as a needed/requested category which causes stuff like this to happen from time to time. Presumably if the category has been deleted it's been deemed not helpful to Wikipedia, and we're
not a social network for them to express themselves through unhelpful categories. Perhaps more of a middle ground is appropriate, however, where such categories are purged of users periodically, but users are allowed to re-add themselves to said categories if they feel strongly enough afterward.
VegaDark (
talk) 10:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the pings. My main concern is that Rathfelder et al stop messing with peoples Talk pages as stated above. Nothing more. That huge mass of blue links at the bottom of many articles is meaningless nonsense to me, I never look at it, because if clicked, the links take me away from what I was interested in. Now, I appreciate that the work editors do with regard to categories is important to the project, and editors are passionate about it, but being "on a mission" to remove red links is a pointless waste of time, leads to discontent in the kennel, and much grumpy nonsense on the talk pages of the missioneer. To that end I added a category to Rathfelder's Talk page (I think yesterday), and they have been gracious enough to let it remain, and thanked me. Please leave user talk pages alone, and forgive my doggy spelling of schill. I spell sceptic with a 'c' too.
Roxy the dog.bark 11:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
I don't want to interfere with anyone's user page and I apologise to anyone who I have annoyed in this way. But I do want to be able to work on
WikiProject Categories without falling over redlinks meant as a joke. Those who use "Wikipedian" rather than "People" in the category name are less of a problem - it's much easier to see what is going on. I'd be content with a solution which let people use red categories if they start with "Wikipedian".
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
My guess is that only a small number of editors are very bothered about putting these joke categories on their user pages. But it seems to be that categories on user pages should be treated like categories anywhere else. They have to conform to the rules because they spill over into the public part of the encyclopedia. That means if you want a category on your user page you have to actually create a category. I grouped them together in
Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians because it seemed a neutral term. I think the grief that could be created by deleting all the joke categories would outweigh the benefit.
Rathfelder (
talk) 20:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
There was no "problem" here that needed a solution. Editors are already permitted much wider latitude in their user pages than is permitted elsewhere on WP.
Jeh (
talk) 00:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete: These categories are all nonsense and I don't see any reason to keep them other than not hurting the feelings of the creator.
Natureium (
talk) 22:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Just for clarification (as I'm neutral in this matter), the creator of the category page is different from the person who has the category mentioned on their user talk page. So the feelings of the creator of the category page are not at stake. The real point of discussion here is not what should happen to the category page (which needs deletion without any doubt) but what should happen with the mentioning on the user talk pages.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete: Concur with Natureim and VegaDark. Delete them all.
Jeh (
talk) 00:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete
Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians and all subcats, per usercat, per notmyspace, per patentnonsense, per notforsomethingyoumadeupinschooloneday, per above, and just per overall wikipedia policy and guidelines. - jc37 06:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)reply
is the "wider latitude" allowed on user pages an explicit policy? Or is it a failure to enforce existing policies, which as almost everyone has pointed out, clearly say that these silly categories - and deliberately setting up red categories - is not allowed? I would be quite happy if our policy said that people can do what they like on their user page. I am not happy if our policy says one thing but we all agree to ignore it and do something different.
Rathfelder (
talk) 20:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)reply
No,
WP:USERPAGE does not say "people can do what they like on their user page". You didn't really expect it to, right? I mean, we do have
WP:BLP,
WP:COPYVIO, and other absolute rules that would preclude any such carte blanche permission. On the other hand,
WP:USERPAGE does explicitly say "You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere". It says other similar things too.
Personally I think that a redlinked "user category" will always be preferable to creating the category, whether it's a "joke" category or not. The latter would blur the line between mainspace and userspace, a line that is clearly supported by
WP:USERPAGE.
Jeh (
talk) 07:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Your last point is the one I object to. Redlinked categories do impinge on the main space. They appear in the list of categories. That is why I created the category idiosyncratic wikipedians - to round them all up. If they are allowed to exist on user pages then the categories should be treated as categories are treated, and not as the personal property of the users. People who want to make personal statements on their user page have other means of doing so which do not impinge on the main space.
Rathfelder (
talk) 09:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)reply
My opinion is that a redlinked category blurs the line a lot less than a bluelinked one.
Jeh (
talk) 21:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)reply
But it interferes with the process of mending broken categories
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:30, 31 December 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:Tourist attractions in Jamshedpur
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/delete without prejudice to recreate when more content is available (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Just containing one article, and that one is nominated for deletion. Most likely soon an empty category. The Bannertalk 00:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: with just one article, the category is superfluous and can be easily added to the parent category The Bannertalk 00:39, 22 December 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.