Category:20th-century Rhodesian people by occupation
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: All Rhodesian occupational categories are 20th-century as Rhodesia only existed from 1964 to 1980.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Support Certain Rhodesian protectorates go back to 1899, but Northern and Southern Rhodesia were established in 20th century, so that even if applied more widely to cover the present Zambia and Zimbabwe, there would be no real case to split by centuries.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per nomination + Peterkingiron's rational.
QuietHere (
talk) 22:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, even if Rhodesia was seen to be starting at 1899, it still wouldn't warrant by-century category trees.--
Mvqr (
talk) 11:46, 29 May 2022 (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:Nomination WithdrawnLenticel(
talk) 01:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Was unfamiliar with SMALLCAT when I made this proposal, everything checks out to me. Consider this as me changing my vote to keep (assuming I'm allowed to do that).
QuietHere (
talk) 06:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)reply
User:QuietHere, since the votes her are for Keep you can also write here that you withdraw your nomination so that an admin can close this CfD. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Good to know. In that case, I officially withdraw my nomination (is that how it works?).
QuietHere (
talk) 00:48, 2 June 2022 (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.
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two notable football club in every of these places. Some of these places do not even have a category of their own, so that there is only one merge target.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions.
GiantSnowman 10:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge, per nom these all fit nicely in the provincial category.--
Mvqr (
talk) 11:47, 29 May 2022 (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:Number-one singles in Pakistan
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: There doesn't seem to be a reputable singles chart in Pakistan; none are listed on
WP:GOODCHARTS. Ten Pound Hammer âą (
What did I screw up now?) 01:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: out of all the songs in there, only six actually mention charts. Four of those do not have sources (one has a source but it fails verification), one has book sources that don't name specific charts, and one seems to be specifically talking about Spotify charts which I don't think we use here. All told, that leaves very little usable material.
QuietHere (
talk) 22:24, 27 May 2022 (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.