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.
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:Journal of Contemporary History people[edit]
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 03:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Textbook case of WP:NONDEFINING. We don't even do this for the top positions of top journals (e.g. EiCs of Nature/Science/etc...). Low-level positions of standard journals don't need a category. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:30, 24 December 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:Transportation network companies of the United Kingdom[edit]
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:speedy close, making way for a speedy rename request of the entire tree at CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: procedural nomination: opposed at speedy, but the proposal also gained quite some support. As the nominator, I do not have a specific opinion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transportation network companies is not a very good name for the category. I'd go with Oculi's proposal. It also avoids local usage issues with the term Transportation. Rathfelder (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think anyone in England (Maybe UK?) would call them Transportation network companies, but I'm not sure that there is a better option. Each of the articles describes its subject differently. Rathfelder (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming the whole tree seems like a good way forward. Rathfelder (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I would support doing Ridesharing companies ArmosNights (talk) 16:44, 24 December 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.
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 for now. MER-C 03:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of these figures are independently notable or warrant an article, except for the possibility of Aragorn. The category therefore is no longer required, and can be converted into a list on the appropriate LOTR main page. Michepman (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this venue is not for discussing the notability of articles, see WP:AFD for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Marcocapelle says, the nom is premature. In any case, being a king of somewhere is defining (regardless of how many other kings there were). Oculi (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is based on Michepman's ideas on notability, and not on Wikipedia policy. Dimadick (talk) 12:22, 24 December 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.
