Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 25



Category:Extraterrestrials-humankind relations

 * 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 category contents except the redirect are suitably categorized elsewhere. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting extraterrestrials-humankind relations


 * Nominator's rationale: Really? Editor2020 (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What's your point? Apokrif (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:PROFRINGE / just fucking stupid. Wikipedia is a reality-based Project. Alexbrn (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a reality-based project, it's a sources-based project. This is not the place for the Truth. – Uanfala 21:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:VALID. We omit stuff that isn't taken seriously (in sources). Like this. Alexbrn (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So you think that (for instance) Search for extraterrestrial intelligence "isn't taken seriously (in sources)"? Apokrif (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We've a category, Category:Search for extraterrestrial intelligence for that. There are no "relations" (despite what the anal probe brigade would have us believe). Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "We've a category, Category:Search for extraterrestrial intelligence for that" Right: Category:Search for extraterrestrial intelligence is a subcategory of Category:Extraterrestrials-humankind relations.
 * "There are no "relations"" Can you please add your sources to the relevant articles (e.g. Fermi_paradox)?
 * Apokrif (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Reversed burden of evidence. See WP:FLAT. Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If (and that's a big "if") you think WP:FLAT is applicable, please edit Fermi_paradox and Planetarium hypothesis accordingly. Apokrif (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * However, the point here is "how to categorize allegations", not "are these allegations proven?"
 * Apokrif (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Not empty. There are two pages and three subcategories. Maybe work on removing those before deleting?-- Auric    talk  21:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * delete The whole point of such relations is that there are no such relations (or, what is the Fermi paradox for?). Mangoe (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not restricted to existing things (see Category:Fictional characters for instance. Btw, did you read Fermi_paradox? Apokrif (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know, perhaps for a French-speaker the word "relations" carries different connotations. But I just don't see taking three otherwise unrelated categories about aliens, tossing it together with a couple (out of, I dunno, probably half or more of the SF genre) items from works of fiction, and calling it a category. Maybe just get rid of the fiction, upmerge it into Category:Extraterrestrial_life, and call it a day? Mangoe (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Only two items (other than subcategories), which are currently about fiction. Subcategories vary from ufology to scientific search for E.T. life (where there are no documented existing human-ET relation yet, unless we call sending messages in space, or sampling from space, relations).  Could alternatively be renamed but I fail to immediately find a plausible name.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't get your point: do you mean that undocumented things should be excluded from the category system (which would imply that Category:Scientific speculation should be deleted)? Apokrif (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Speculation of E.T. contact wasn't the category name... also, we should take care not to state in Wikipedia's voice what are fringe views (and should describe those as such (alleged, claims, beliefs, speculation, etc)). Category:Search for extraterrestrial life is an adequate example too, but still could not fit all the content of the category being discussed.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right: the category is not (only) about speculation: it's also about fiction and about things, like Raelism, the existence of which is not disputed. Apokrif (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Although not technically empty, none of the category members support the existence of the category. In other words, it really should be empty, given the sources shown. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. All of the category members are already in other appropriate categories. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * An article can be in several categories. Apokrif (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. pointless category at the moment. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There are reliable sources about alleged ET-humans relations and attempts at such relations. Apokrif (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The two articles you put into this cat both refer to fiction and, at the very least, this category title implies non-fictional usage. So neither article produces reliable sources for non-fictional alleged or attempted such relations. Even drilling down to the sub-category member articles, at best the reliable sources support saying that there are those who believe they have had relations of one sort or another with extraterrestrials. The category is not, however, "Promoters of extraterrestrials-humankind relations" or "Believer in extraterrestrials-humankind relations", both of which would already be covered by the pre-existing Category:UFO religions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "The two articles you put into this cat both refer to fiction" No (one of them is Zoo hypothesis). Moreover, other articles can be added, and this category also contains subcategories.
 * " both of which would already be covered by the pre-existing Category:UFO religions" No.
 * "at best the reliable sources support saying that there are those who believe they have had relations of one sort or another with extraterrestrials." No.
 * Apokrif (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The only examples of human-extraterrestrial relations given in the Zoo Hypothesis article are all to works of fiction. Saying "There are reliable sources" without actually giving any is as non-contributive as these flat contradictions. Please provide some evidence that there are independent reliable sources of actual human-extraterrestrial relations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was refferring to Zoo Hypothesis, not to one of its subsections.
 * "Please provide some evidence that there are independent reliable sources of actual human-extraterrestrial relations" Why should I? That's irrelevant to this discussion. Perhaps you are conflating "unproven", or "looked for", with "fictional"?
 * Apokrif (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You should want to provide reliable sources because that what the entire project is based on and because you yourself said "there are reliable sources." If you are unwilling or unable to do so, that makes the argument to keep that you started with rather hollow.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you notice that the category name does not have "actual" in it? (perhaps you did not see that I wrote "alleged" and "attempts at" immediately after the passage you quote)
 * Regarding sources about the actual topic of this category, see, for instance, Search_for_extraterrestrial_intelligence and Raël.
 * Apokrif (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there is only one relevant article in it, with limited prospects of further populating the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - if the consensus is to keep, should it be renamed to ? Grutness...wha?  23:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BJAODN. jps (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do reliable sources say that SETI or John Christopher's works are silly things? Apokrif (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. You don't get the luxury of asking me for reliable sources. The WP:ONUS is on you to show that reliable sources have claimed that those outfits are engaging in "extraterrestrials-humankind relations". Try to do it with a straight face. jps (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't get your point. Why do you link to a page about silly things if you cannot say which silly things you are talking about? Apokrif (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This category itself is the silly thing (not the things you or others try to shoehorn into it). Very silly. jps (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete One of the most stupid categories I have come across, there are no relations with extraterrestrials. We haven't found any yet David J Johnson (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is that there are reliable sources about (1) notable fictional works of fiction about them, (2) notable alleged actual relations, and (3) notable attempts at finding or establishing such relations (hence the subcategories). Apokrif (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least add "alleged" or "Conspiracy theories about" to the name. Credulously claiming there are articles which document "extraterrestrial-humankind relationships" is a policy vio on numerous levels (WP:V, WP:FRINGE, etc). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Credulously claiming there are articles which document "extraterrestrial-humankind relationships"" Nobody claims that AFAIK. Apokrif (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The category name does exactly that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So you think that Category:God should be renamed? Apokrif (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. And yet I still stand by what I said just above. If you can't wrap your head around the differences between those two, then you don't belong on this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My point was: categories are sometimes about (possibly) non-existent things, even when the category's name does not says it explicitly. Apokrif (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP doesn't take a position on whether god exists. But whether Cletus from the Ozarks ever had a probe shoved up his ass by the lizard people from Zeta Reticuli? Yeah, we take a position on that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does WP take a position on whether there is extraterrestrial life? Apokrif (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but it does take a position on the idea that "they are among us". They aren't. And since this category strongly implies they ''are', it's going to get removed. Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Or more succinctly: WP doesn't take a position on extraterrestrial life. It DOES take a position on "Extraterrestrial-human relations". You're welcome for the spelling/grammar correction, by the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "it does take a position on the idea that "they are among us"" No (see Search for extraterrestrial intelligence for instance). Apokrif (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You may correct yourself spelling and grammar errors. Apokrif (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Category overreach. Unwise attempt to shoehorn subtly different alien/human topics into a single category. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't see how Overcategorization applies here ("non-neutral", "subjective", "character trait"). Apokrif (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For example, no two people agree that SETI constitutes "relations" between humans and extraterrestrials. It's highly subjective. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this is covered by categories seen here Arecibo message prokaryotes (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * These categories do not cover all of Category:Extraterrestrials-humankind_relations (hence its creation). Apokrif (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete As others have said, this is too small, and too POVy.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Potential keep, probably renamed as Category:Relations between humans and extraterrestrials (or such like).  I agree that much of the business in FRINGE, but while we have the articles, we need a category for them.  Personally, I do not believe there are any, but that is my POV.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Whitelighters

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting whitelighters


 * Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in the category and not likely to expand with the show being over JDDJS (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is an unnecessary subset of Charmed characters. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Question should the content of this category be upmerged to any of its parent categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Both are already in the Charmed characters category, so that they will not be orphaned.  I do not know enough about any other parents to comment.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They are already categorized in the parent cats so there's no need for upmerging -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.

Language isolates

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Language isolates of Africa, Category:Language isolates of Asia, Category:Language isolates of Australia, Category:Language isolates of New Guinea, Category:Language isolates of North America, and Category:Language isolates of South America to Category:Language isolates
 * Nominator's rationale: Per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_17 and WP:SMALLCAT, there is really no need to have Category:Language isolates diffused. Please make sure to also upmerge to any other relevant categories by language. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I really don't see what can be gained from merging. A single category with a hundred or so languages peppered across the globe doesn't provide meaningful navigation. – Uanfala 08:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose − the rationale for the previous discussion was WP:SMALLCAT and these are not small. In any case one could have argued that this is a subcat scheme by continent so small categories are (perhaps) permitted. (Surely there are quite a few language isolates of Europe.) Oculi (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Basque is the only recognized language isolates of Europe. There are some uncategorized ones out there, but being isolates and being uncategorized are two separate things. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Basque is fine in the general category, but the others would be a mess. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- All (or most) have enough content to keep. As Basque is (I think) the only European case, it is OK to have it directly in the parent.  New Guinea has a very large number of languages so that having it diffused by that one island.   Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Assamese Brahmins

 * 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: procedural close. This nomination is a duplicate of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_19. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting assamese brahmins


 * Nominator's rationale: This is a duplicate category of Brahmin communities of Assam. It should be deleted to ensure Brahmin categorisation is constant, keeping in–line with the Brahmin community categorisations for other Indian states, such as Brahmin communities of Uttarakhand etc... This is just adding to the clutter. Please action and delete this. No point of having two categories representing the same information. AnjanBorah (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Jacob Rees-Mogg

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting jacob rees-mogg


 * Nominator's rationale: Textbook case of overcategorisation, specifically relating to Eponymous categories for people (which are meant for "very notable cases"). It is important to remember that "Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively but Category:Barack Obama, Category:John Maynard Keynes and Category:Albert Einstein are some exceptions" - and this category contains just two articles - the BLP of the subject and an awful silly season article that was subject to an AfD which closed as no consensus with the option of a future merge. Clearly fails WP:SMALLCAT as well. AusLondonder (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, unneeded/unnecessary. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as creator. Indeed little growth available here, and wasn't aware of the 'very notable cases' guideline. 81.106.34.193 (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC) (User:My name is not dave on wikibreak)
 * Delete as everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, creator is also okay with deletion -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete only two pages and no room for expansion - unless he becomes party leader Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:British Eurosceptics

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:British Eurosceptics to Category:British eurosceptics
 * Nominator's rationale: moved the category without resort to CFD/CFDS 10 days ago on the grounds "Grammatical correction" - but the parent category, Category:Eurosceptics is consistently named with the lower cases, which is grammatically correct. AusLondonder (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Use with a capital. I moved the mentioned page as it appeared obvious that it was incorrect. Almost every time I have seen the spelling it has been used with a capital. Note the page Euroscepticism consistently uses a capital 'E'. Wiktionary also states it as a capital. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Euroskeptic The Collins dictionary also gives it with a capital E, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/eurosceptic Helper201 (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as Eurosceptics, a Google search of newspaper articles about the subject indicates a capital E is the most common usage, I presume the root is "Europe". Sionk (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:All redirect templates

 * 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:  at Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 10.  ℯ  xplicit  06:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:All redirect templates to Category:Redirect templates
 * Nominator's rationale: Pointless hidden category that contains content identical to Category:Redirect templates and isn't sortkeyed Pariah24 (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Notable Orthodox Churches North America

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting notable orthodox churches north america


 * Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary list, as by the virtue of existing on Wikipedia, all the listed churches are "notable". epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment it could potentially be renamed to Category:Eastern Orthodox church buildings in North America. However we do not have a tree by continent for this topic yet, so this is not to be regarded as an oppose against the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * delete I don't know that there's an umbrella "North America" category for orthodox church buildings, but there is an extensive "by state" structure for the US, and presumably there are similar structures for the other NA countries. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nominator's note: Please also see Articles for deletion/Notable Orthodox Churches North America. epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The AFD has already been closed "Keep" (withdrawn by nominator Epicgenius) after the list-article was re-focused to become List of Greek Orthodox churches in the United States. And I moved it to that name. -- do ncr  am  22:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, probably, or rename to something like "Category:Orthodox churches in the United States" and to include as subcategories Category:Greek Orthodox churches in the United States and Category:Russian Orthodox churches in the United States and also the corresponding Coptic one (Category:Coptic Orthodox churches in the United States?). The category, while it seemed to me that the creator had a perfectly good idea to create it at the time, is not needed in its current wording.  Two of the three items in the category right now are Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church which should be in narrower category Category:Greek Orthodox churches in the United States.  The third is List of largest Orthodox cathedrals which includes places outside the United States. -- do  ncr  am  22:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Renaming to Category:Orthodox churches in the United States is not a good idea, note that Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in the United States already exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The creator of this category might instead want to create Category:Eastern Orthodox churches on the National Register of Historic Places‎, parallel to Category:Roman Catholic churches on the National Register of Historic Places‎. However, we can't rename the existing category to that one, as only one of the three member pages would belong in it. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- We do not have "notable" categories, because whether an item is especially notable is a matter of editorial POV. If a church was NN (to WP standards), it would not have an article.  The list is in fact international, not American and does not belong. The other two are in appropriate Greek Orthodox categories.  There is no need to merge.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Big Ten Women's Soccer Tournament

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:Big Ten Women's Soccer Tournament
 * Nominator's rationale: I created a different category at Category:Big Ten Conference Women's Soccer Tournament some time ago and never actually proposed the old one for deletion. The other category has a more accurate naming convention and is more consistent with the other categories. Jay eyem (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Either Delete as empty or convert to cat-redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.