Contents

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 3

April 3[edit]

Category:Comcast franchises[edit]

The result of the discussion was: mergetoCategory:Media franchises by owner. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Comcast franchises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Refers to media franchises owned by Comcast. It's an unnecessary parent category for Category:NBCUniversal franchises, because Comcast has no other media franchises besides NBCUniversal ones. Trivialist (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MergetoCategory:Media franchises by owner, as user:Trivialist has given no rationale for removing the sub-cat from this parent hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 07:18, 4 April 2019 (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:AT&T franchises[edit]

The result of the discussion was: mergetoCategory:Media franchises by owner and Category:AT&T brands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:AT&T franchises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Refers to media franchises owned by AT&T. It's an unnecessary parent category for Category:WarnerMedia franchises, because AT&T has no other media franchises besides WarnerMedia ones. Trivialist (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MergetoCategory:Media franchises by owner, as user:Trivialist has given no rationale for removing the sub-cat from this parent hierarchy. Nominator should also either propose merger to the other parent Category:AT&T brands, or add that category into this nomination for deletion, as it would be emptied by the original nomination. – Fayenatic London 07:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge alsotoCategory:AT&T brands, to which I have now added some other content, given the lack of response from the nominator. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 8 April 2019 (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:Songs written by Basshunter[edit]

The result of the discussion was: keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Songs written by BasshuntertoCategory:Basshunter songs

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate cat Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Basshunter Songs" is incorrect. Category:Songs written by Basshunter can include non-Basshunter songs. Eurohunter (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry should have been a small s. If he wrote the song it's his song. The cats are trying to draw a finer distinction than is useful or clear. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He don't need to write his songs also. Eurohunter (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. These are part of two well established categories, Category:Songs by artist and Category:Songs by songwriter. These are different functions and should not be merged, or confused as to meaning the same thing. Just off the top of my head is the proposal to merge songs performed & songs written for every other artist? From Prince, Elton John to Ariana Grande and Ed Sheeran? No, this nomination has not be thought out and, if the nominator think they have a case, should include every other artist that might write some or all of the songs they record. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as Richhoncho, these are different categories in different trees. Category:Basshunter songs is shorthand for 'songs recorded by Basshunter'. which could be completely different from 'Songs written by Basshunter'. Oculi (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• well that is not clear from the plain reading of the category name amd no I'm not going to hunt down every similar case. It's not that important. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's quite a short hunt: Category:Songs by artist ..."This category is for songs by recording artist" Oculi (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Miss You (Westlife song) was recorded by B but not written by B. Oculi (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2019 (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.

Organizations based in Mexico[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Procedural close until this RFC is closed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Od Mishehu launched a series of cfds on this topic in 2017, the premise being that a given country should use either 'z' or 's' (but not a mixture thereof); eg France, Brazil, Bolivia, Iran, Angola, Greece, Poland, Israel, Puerto Rico, Turkey. While there was variation in support for 's' or 'z', there was consensus that there should be consistency at the country level. Oculi (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Option A (as nom). Follow the usage of Category:Organizations based in Mexico, convention in clear majority of subcats, proximity to USA, lack of ties to UK etc. Oculi (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Option A. Consistency is important, and the Z spelling should be used throughout Wikipedia. Z is the std form in American English, and one of two acceptable form in British English. The case for using the "S"-spelling is very weak even in UK-related topics, and for a country such as Mexico with minimal links to the UK and strong ties to the USA it is non-existent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• RFC. I have opened an RFC about whether to standardise on the "Z" spelling in descriptive category names, i.e. to use "Organization" in all cases. I estimate that this affects the naming of about ten thousand categories.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC:_spelling_of_"organisation"/"organization"_in_descriptive_category_names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Option A per remarks of both Oculi and BrownHairedGirl. All the more so given the close proximity to the US, which is certainly the English variant used in Mexico. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• OPtion A -- Proximity to USA suggests the use of the Z spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either for standarization but no preference for which in non-English speaking countries. I'm not in favor of keeping the status quo. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2019 (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:Anti-Christian sentiment[edit]

The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 21:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Anti-Christian sentimenttoCategory:Anti-Christianity

Nominator's rationale: Per other subcategories of Category:Antireligion which do not use the word "sentiment". feminist (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:C2C. The subcategories of Category:Anti-Christian sentiment should be renamed accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is no such article as "Anti-Christianity". The main article is Persecution of Christians. Dimadick (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Persecution of Christians ought to be a subcategory of this one - and it actually is. It is surprising there is no article Anti-Christianity while we do have articles Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - sentiment is more accurate title than just anti-X. Also per Dimadick. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose no reason to change. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - And we should consider renaming the sibling categories as well to include the word "sentiment". Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a good name, which can cover criticism as much as persecution. "Anti-Christianity" and Christophobia sound much more militant than this concept. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2019 (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:Musical settings of poems by Aldous Huxley[edit]

The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 21:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Musical settings of poems by Aldous HuxleytoCategory:Aldous Huxley

Nominator's rationale: A single page cat. WP:SMALLCAT Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge per nom. (I'd forgotten I'd created this category.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2019 (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.

Establishments in Portland, Oregon‎[edit]

The result of the discussion was: merge & delete. – Fayenatic London 07:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

• Category:Establishments in Portland, Oregon by year

Propose merging:

• Category:2000 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2000 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2001 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2001 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2002 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2002 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2003 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2003 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2004 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2004 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2005 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2005 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2006 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2006 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2007 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2007 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2008 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2008 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2009 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2009 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2010 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2010 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2011 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2011 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2012 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2012 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2013 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2013 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2014 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2014 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2015 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2015 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2016 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2016 establishments in Oregon‎
• Category:2017 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎toCategory:2017 establishments in Oregon‎

Nominator's rationale: per WP:NARROWCAT, and per long-standing CFD consensus not to categorise establishments and disestablishments by city. (See e.g. 2012: London and 2019 February: Philadelphia and Pittsburgh)

As the table on the right shows, the Oregon categories are nowhere big enough to need splitting. If merged, the median size of the merged categories will be only 55 pages. The biggest category will be Category:2009 establishments in Oregon with only 89 pages, and the smallest will be Category:2017 establishments in Oregon with only 13 pages. (Note that the table is self-updating, so those totals may change)

The Portland categories do not fail the usual minimum threshold of 5 which is commonly applied to WP:SMALLCAT, but that threshold is a minimum not a mandate. There are many other reasons not to pursue ever-narrower intersections, including:

1. A proliferation of narrow categories. This approach leads to the creation of dozens of extra categories for a city, causing maintemace headaches.
2. If applied throughout a city's history, this approach creates a long thin tail. Alternatively, an arbitrary cutoff date is applied, which is confusing to both readers and editors. It leads to categories being created outside the scope, which then need CFD attention to merge.
3. If we start categorising establishments by city, there will be endless CFD debates about which cities are suitable, and for what periods. Vast amounts of editor time will be used up in creating, populating and debating these categories for scores of cities.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous discussions:
  • 2016 March 14: no consensus
  • 2016 December 30: weak consensus to keep the one category in the series which was nominated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Notifications: WikiProject Oregon has been notified[1]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume I made most or all of these subcategories, and I thought I made them with good reason. I'd prefer prefer to see them kept and find them helpful for organizational purposes and grouping local topics together, but we'll see what other editors say (for a third time). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Another Believer: I can see that there is some utility to these categories. The question is whether the advantages of these narrow categories outweigh the disadvantages, both at local level and in the precedent they would set if kept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    BrownHairedGirl, I understand, and I'm happy for the community to discuss. Personally, I'd prefer not to have categories with so many entries, and I'd find similar subcategories for some other cities helpful as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: a median size of 55 for the merged categories is hardly big. Even the biggest merged cat would be less than half way to a pageful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All categories have been tagged, in these edits[2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, categorizing establishments per city per year will ultimately lead to endless series of smallcats and currently there is no urgent need to start this kind of diffusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this is a bad idea. Self-updating floating tables however are a splendid if somewhat mysterious idea, and should be a sine qua non for any self-respecting cfd. Oculi (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the latter too. There is also a self-updating table on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Current_discussions to show the backlog in CfD and TfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The backlog table is {{XFD backlog}}, which I built on the back of some fiendishly cunning Lua programming by @Pppery.

The table here is just a collection of {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} calls made by this one-off template. I think it might be worth seeing if I can make a generalised version of that template, because that sort of data would be useful in other group merge CFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- We need a pragmatic approach to this problem based on the consensus of a minimum of 5 articles. I would suggest that this should only be allowed for cities with a certain minimum population. Portland has a population of nearly 650,000: perhaps we should set the bar at 500,000. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron, the widely-accepted minimum of 5 pages per WP:SMLLCAT is a minimum, not a mandate. It does not create a license to slice up categories into units of 5 pages.

In this case there is no need to subdivise Oregon, because the largest category post-merger would contain only 87 pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• support Although many of the categories might superficially top off beyond the five, I have general concerns that many of them are filled with bread crumb articles that are not only poor quality but fail to satisfy WP:GNG, and WP:ORGSIG such as non-notable bars and taverns, restaurants and entertainment venues both present and former which commonly come and go. Though some of these problem articles look semi decent, many of them have nothing but chains of routine reviews and commentaries from travel guides. Those articles for businesses, organizations etc that are not obviously notable and fail to establish notability with the provided sources need to be removed and once that is done the category will clear up significantly, thus eliminating the need for them to exist. Graywalls (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment says absolutely nothing about the appropriateness of the categories themselves... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm specifically addressing that these categories are not really necessary, because many of the articles within them, especially those representing the last 10 years are significantly suffering from articles getting created about non-notable entries. Whenever I try to address those ones in Portland such as in this latest example, they just froth up with foam; which makes it look presentable but does nothing about the fundamental lack notability meeting WP:GNG and WP:NORG. These "problem articles" should be counted out of assessing the utilization rate of their respective categories. before after filler cites and event listingsGraywalls (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrownHairedGirl:, I just looking through the Category:2009 establishments in Portland, Oregon‎, these are just a handful of articles that probably shouldn't exist anyways. I'm arguing that justification for the need to have micro categories is blown out of proportion by apparent need created by having them stuffed with articles about run of the mill restaurants, bars, clubs and bands Such as, but not limited to: Grüner (restaurant), Portland Men's Roller Derby, World Famous Cannabis Cafe and Icarus_the_Owl. Picked for no particular reason. I looked at the list. Randomly chose some unfamiliar things and named some that seems iffy. Graywalls (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge Splitting out at the city level is just not justified for establishment by year categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2019 (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.

Palaces by city[edit]

The result of the discussion was: dual merge. all except for Category:Palaces in Forlì, which is kept. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Palaces in Alcalá de HenarestoCategory:Buildings and structures in Alcalá de Henares‎ and Category:Palaces in the Community of Madrid
• Propose merging Category:Palaces in AranjueztoCategory:Buildings and structures in Aranjuez‎ and Category:Palaces in the Community of Madrid
• Propose merging Category:Palaces in ForlìtoCategory:Buildings and structures in Forlì‎ and Category:Palaces in Emilia-Romagna
• Propose merging Category:Palaces in Kuala LumpurtoCategory:Buildings and structures in Kuala Lumpur‎ and Category:Palaces in Malaysia
• Propose merging Category:Palaces in LagostoCategory:Buildings and structures in Lagos‎ and Category:Palaces in Nigeria
• Propose merging Category:Palaces in ModenatoCategory:Buildings and structures in Modena‎ and Category:Palaces in Emilia-Romagna
• Propose merging Category:Palaces in OlitetoCategory:Buildings and structures in Olite‎ and Category:Palaces in Navarre
• Propose merging Category:Palaces in PienzatoCategory:Buildings and structures in Pienza‎ and Category:Palaces in Tuscany
• Propose merging Category:Palaces in PutrajayatoCategory:Buildings and structures in Putrajaya‎ and Category:Palaces in Malaysia
• Propose merging Category:Palaces in ŠiauliaitoCategory:Buildings and structures in Šiauliai‎ and Category:Palaces in Lithuania
• Propose merging Category:Palaces in ValenciatoCategory:Buildings and structures in Valencia‎ and Category:Palaces in the Valencian Community
• Propose merging Category:Palaces in ViterbotoCategory:Buildings and structures in Viterbo‎ and Category:Palaces in Lazio

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of the above categories contain only 1 or 2 articles and there is limited growth potential. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose

I created this category and strongly oppose merger into a larger category. The list has room to grow.

A category of Palaces in Lazio becomes unwieldy if all but the largest city has its own category.

WP:Small does not define how large a list should be, but it should be more than a few.

Specifically for Viterbo, there could be additional entries for:[[3]]

1. Palazzo Comunale

1. Palazzo del Podestà
2. Palazzo della Prefettura
3. Palazzo delle Carceri
4. Palazzo Farnese
5. Palazzo Chigi
6. Palazzo di Donna Olimpia Pamphili
7. Palazzo Gentili-Anfanelli
8. Palazzo Santoro
9. Palazzo Doria, San Martino a Cimino (perhaps)

I object to merging Category:Palaces in Forlì. See [4] for over a half dozen other palaces that could be added to category.

I oppose the merger of Viterbo category with a larger category.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rococo1700 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll strike the nomination of Forli because on it.wp there are more articles about palaces in Forli. With Viterbo it is a different issue, it.wp also has few articles and the book being referred to is about palaces in the province of Viterbo. As a side issue, it is nonsense that Category:Palaces in Lazio would become unwieldy after the merger, as it contains only 5 articles directly in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all how many palaces can one city hold? It's not like new palaces get built all the time. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Answer to Legacypac: many.Rococo1700 (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Answer to Marcocapelle on unwieldy category: the Florence ratios for categories for Palaces and Churches are about 1:1; the region of Lazio has hundreds of churches, if a similar ratio holds, we could easily rack up hundreds. I strongly object, I also object to the nomination of Modena. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The large amount of palaces in Lazio are in the city of Rome, which has its own palaces category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all -- I could not find any with more than 2 articles. Rococo's objection could perhaps be met by additionally merging to a wider places category. If more articles are created so that a city (or province) has at least 5, ther category can be re-created. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2019 (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:National Heroes of Turkey[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:National Heroes of Turkey

Nominator's rationale: Probably per WP:SHAREDNAME maybe WP:VorWP:SUBJECTIVECAT

There is no main article for National Hero of Turkey nor is it mentioned anywhere in the Orders, decorations, and medals of Turkey main article and a Google search in English points to this category in Wikipedia. Reading through the articles, they all use the word "hero" (or "heroine") somewhere in the body like (e.g. "folk hero", "war hero", "remembered as a hero"). Maybe this is a good faith misunderstanding that categories are not the same as key words or maybe there is an obscure award without a main article. In any case, this category doesn't seem defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as wholly subjective. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2019 (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:Kokomo Mantis FC players[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kokomo Mantis FC players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category for a deleted page that failed WP:GNG, category is not useful Jay eyem (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only 2 entries, no main article, not needed. GiantSnowman 13:00, 3 April 2019 (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:Union Cycliste Internationale Hall of Fame inductees[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Union Cycliste Internationale Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TOPTEN and WP:OCAWARD

The UCI Hall of Fame was a one-time list from 2002 of the all-time greatest people who "contributed to the glory and development of cycling sport throughout the world". This list was part of the grand-opening celebration of the Union Cycliste Internationale"s World Cycling Centre where the hall of fame is housed. This is not an ongoing award which inducts new people each year. The articles I looked at didn't mention the award except they all had Template:UCI Hall of Fame so this doesn't seem defining. The recipients are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCAWARD and as not WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete -- another NN OCAWARD case. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2019 (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.