Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 15



Category:Barefooters

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting barefooters


 * Propose deleting fictional barefooters


 * Nominator's rationale: I can't see this as being a defining characteristic for people, particularly where inclusion in the category appears to have an element of arbitrariness to it – people added to the category include Steve Jobs, Amy Grant, and Shakira, but we have Commons images of all of them wearing shoes in public (Jobs in 2007, Jobs in 2010, Grant in 2008, Shakira in 2017, Shakira in 2018). BD2412  T 21:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Barefooters Category, Keep Fictional Barefooters Category as it is more likely to be a major trait in a fictional setting. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Ridiculous idea for categories.★Trekker (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete both as trivial and non-defining. have been placed there although they wear sandals. Re: fictional category, I see that e.g. Esmeralda (The Hunchback of Notre-Dame) was placed there although the article does not define her as a barefoot character, actually writing about the 1966 film adaptation: Lollobrigida was the first actress to portray Esmeralda barefoot, in contrast to Hugo's novel. This means that the category would be very inconsistently applied at the whim of individual editors, and this characteristic too trivial for categorization. Place Clichy (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but then there are cases, for fictional characters, where being barefooted is consistently part of the character eg.Rapunzel (Disney). (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, I intended this category for people who not only like to go barefoot, but for whom the barefoot appearance is part of their public image, and is therefore notable and sourced by RS (i. e. singers and dancers who perform barefoot, iconic figures like Socrates and Johnny Appleseed whose depiction includes bare feet, etc.) Therefore I would suggest to keep it, but perhaps clean it up. --HPfan4 (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This has some highly problematic implications. If you are going by depictions, this will sweep in nearly all ancient philosophers, because depicting them barefoot is a later-developed custom, irrespective of any historical truth to the claim. With fictional characters, I would think that this would sweep in nearly all fictional animals (e.g., Pink Panther (character), Donald Duck, Yogi Bear, Charmander, Simba, Curious George, Crazy Frog, Gabby Gator), unless it were specifically exclusive of them. BD2412  T 15:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For Fictional Characters, we could add being a fictional human/human-like as a specification. (Oinkers42) (talk)
 * I think it's not a problem due to the requirement of RS. Say, you will find a lot of sources on Socrates' tendency to go barefoot - but none on an arbitrary ancient philosopher. Likewise, you can find plenty of RS for the fact that Rapunzel was depicted barefoot (just because it's an unusual trait for a human character), but not a single source for Pink Panther or Donald Duck (since for animals, it's a trivial thing). --HPfan4 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this at all distinguishable from a hypothetical Category:People who wear hats (or Category:Fictional characters who wear hats), or Category:People who wear the color blue? BD2412  T 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is because you're not likely to find an RS for people wearing the color blue. Barefooting as a consistent behaviour pattern has cultural significance (sometimes even religious - see Bishr the Barefoot, for example), and can also be a lifestyle, like naturism - while "color-wearing" isn't. On the other hand, if a certain clothing item is iconic and culturally significant enough to be covered by RS, it can also be listed or categorized - say, we have a List of bow tie wearers which obviously doesn't include every person who was once photographed wearing a bow tie. --HPfan4 (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep fictional, delete real/general. We already have numerous lifestyle categories and classifications for people and characters, and this is just as valid and prevalent as any other. The reason why I vote to delete real-life barefooters category is simply because there's way fewer of them than you would find in fiction. While it's common with regards to regular folks, most celebrities don't readily admit to it. --72.184.60.96 (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete non-defining per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete both as trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete both as bare trivia. This reminds me of Category:Bald People and Category:Fictional Bald Characters (2) deleted a long time ago. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 01:10, 18 June 2020 (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:Amusement rides based on television franchises

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Amusement rides based on television franchises to Category:Amusement park attractions based on television franchises
 * Nominator's rationale: These two categories are describing the exact same thing. There is a ton of overlap between the two. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Oinkers42) (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 June 2020 (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:Alternate history websites & portals

 * 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Alternate history websites & portals to Category:Alternate history websites
 * Nominator's rationale: "& portals" is not standard. ★Trekker (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom, eligible to speedy renaming per WP:C2C. Place Clichy (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename--Yasnodark (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2020 (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.

1930s in Moldova

 * 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, please see replacement nomination at  Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_9. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Option A
 * Propose merging Category:1930s in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic to Category:1930s in Moldova
 * Propose merging Category:1930s establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic to Category:1930s establishments in Moldova
 * Propose renaming Category:1938 in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic to Category:1938 in Moldova
 * Propose renaming Category:1938 establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic to Category:1938 establishments in Moldova


 * Option B
 * Propose merging Category:1930s in Moldova to Category:1930s in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
 * Propose merging Category:1930s establishments in Moldova to Category:1930s establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
 * Propose renaming Category:1939 in Moldova to Category:1939 in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
 * Propose renaming Category:1939 establishments in Moldova to Category:1939 establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
 * Propose renaming Category:1927 in Moldova to Category:1927 in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
 * Propose renaming Category:1927 disestablishments in Moldova to Category:1927 disestablishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic


 * Nominator's rationale: the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic existed from October 1924 to August 1940, when parts of it were combined with parts of Bessarabia into the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. There are not full category hierarchies for Autonomous SSRs, so merger to Moldova (option A) is probably more useful. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Mild support option A, strong oppose option B: these are not the same area. The interwar Moldavian  A SSR, most of which is currently in Ukraine, should not be confused with post-war Moldavian SSR which is the predecessor of present-day Moldova. Articles in the Moldova categories listed here all relate to Chisinau as far as I can see, which was at the time part of Romania (and clearly out of scope for a merger to a Moldavian ASSR category). The lone article in Moldavian ASSR categories (1 article for 4 categories!) is CS Tiligul-Tiras Tiraspol, a football club established in 1938 in Tiraspol, which is currently in Moldova. Note that there is no other Wikipedia article in any category named after this second-level subdivision of the Soviet Union, not even the main article. The best solution imho is to alt upmerge to national parents:
 * Propose merging Category:1930s in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic to Category:1930s in the Soviet Union
 * Propose merging Category:1930s establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic to Category:1930s establishments in the Soviet Union
 * Propose merging Category:1938 in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic to Category:1938 in the Soviet Union
 * Propose merging Category:1938 establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic to Category:1938 establishments in the Soviet Union
 * Propose merging Category:1930s in Moldova to Category:1930s in Romania
 * Propose merging Category:1930s establishments in Moldova to Category:1930s establishments in Romania
 * Propose merging Category:1939 in Moldova to Category:1939 in Romania
 * Propose merging Category:1939 establishments in Moldova to Category:1939 establishments in Romania
 * Propose merging Category:1927 in Moldova to Category:1927 in Romania
 * Propose merging Category:1927 disestablishments in Moldova to Category:1927 disestablishments in Romania
 * Place Clichy (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support alt merge, we should not have year categories by ASSR. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I bow to your superior knowledge of the ASSR. How about a double merge of the ASSR categories to Soviet Union and to Moldova, perhaps pending further consideration in another CFD? Considering the "in Moldova" categories, past CFDs have allowed anachronistic establishment categories to remain in some cases of territories corresponding to modern-day countries. România Nouă is categorised in Category:1918 establishments in Moldova, so it would seem strange for its 1927 disestablishment to be in Romania. I suggest that either the outcome here should be a double merge from ASSR to Soviet Union and to Moldova, or we should relist and discuss all the anachronistic Moldova categories in one go. It would be invidious to remove only the ASSR period from the Moldova chronology categories. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * About Moldavian ASSR, it is actually sufficient to move the single article CS Tiligul-Tiras Tiraspol to Category:1938 establishments in Ukraine (a child of ) for the entire Moldavian ASSR structure to become unnecessary. About other interwar categories using the name Moldova, I suggest merging them all to an equivalent which uses Romania, because that would have been the name of the country at the time. The earlier chronology categories for the wider region use Moldavia (see Category:Centuries in Moldavia), which covers both "Western" Moldavia (which is now a region of Romania) and present-day Moldova, which alternated between Russian/Soviet and Romanian sovereignty. In English, the term of Moldova (contrasting with Moldavia) is only ever really used to the post-1990 independent country and, at a stretch, its immediate predecessor the 1940-1990 Moldavian SSR, which was the only polity with borders looking anything like those of independent Moldova. To add confusion, the area was most often called Bessarabia when it was part of either the Russian Empire (1812-1917) or Romania (1918-1940/7), but minus the left bank of the Dniestr plus the southern part now belong it to Ukraine (the Budjak). I am not against anachronism in historical categories, but not with this level of confusion between names.
 * The content that would need to be recategorized is:
 * : 2 articles, belonging to
 * : 2 articles, belonging to
 * : 2 articles, belonging to
 * content related to the, a short-lived proto-state that existed between November 1917 and March 1918 when it joined Romania, in the context of desaggregating Russia. The article and category for the state itself should probably be placed in (maybe ) and establishments/disestablishments in Europe. I doubt there is significant content for the period in between that would not find its place between  and . E.g. the National Moldavian Party, a party active in the short-lived state, was founded in March 1917 (in Russia) and replaced in August 1918 (in Romania).
 * : 1 article, belonging to
 * : 1 article and 2 categories; belonging to
 * is currently parented to as well as both  and . This may require further discussion, not excluding keeping the present name (after all, Moldova's predecessor the Moldavian SSR was established in September 1940 after unilateral occupation by USSR, although not definitely recognized as belonging to the Soviet Union until 1947). This uses a mixture of contemporary and present-day names (such as, , ). Borders, names and controlling powers changed several times during the War. As far as our categories are concerned, I would not touch  for now, but recategorize it from  to both  and.
 * Some of these changes do not require CfD. What do you think of the suggested structure? Place Clichy (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * : (I missed your ping.) Thank you again; I support your recommendations completely. The member articles will still be in other Moldova history hierarchies e.g., defunct newspapers/political parties in Moldova. Should we relist and add the other affected year categories? – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best for you to close this discussion and relist this again, but with the modifications discussed here for ease of readability and discussion. There have been some pretty extensive reworkings of the original nom that aren't very easy to follow, and while I think there's a consensus for different changes here, I think it would be more responsible to relist.  bibliomaniac 1  5  19:56, 6 July 2020 (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:Song recordings produced by the Glimmer Twins

 * 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Song recordings produced by the Glimmer Twins to Category:Song recordings produced by Jagger–Richards
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article is Jagger–Richards, while Glimmer Twins is only a redirect. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Category:Song recordings produced by the Glimmer Twins to Category:Song recordings produced by Jagger–Richards – C2B: per Jagger–Richards, Glimmer Twins redirects to it. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose speedy - renaming may be appropriate, but the official production credits are to the Glimmer Twins so this ought to be discussed before renaming. Rlendog (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support renaming. C2D can be a pain at times, but by sticking with it it does make it easier for everybody. There is no harm in putting 'credited as The Glimmer Twins' in the text of the cat, which is how I get round these situations. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2020 (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:Centenarians by ethnicity

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting centenarians by ethnicity


 * Propose deleting centenarians by religion


 * Propose deleting jewish centenarians


 * Propose deleting jewish supercentenarians


 * Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to discussions for Category:Supercentenarians by ethnicity below and Category:Supercentenarians by religion yesterday ( pinging contributors). There is little connection between being a centenarian (or supercentenarian) with being Jewish, or any ethnicity, or any religion. Trivial intersection per WP:OCEGRS. Place Clichy (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: actually, it seems that created a number of ethnicity and religion container categories for the purpose of adding Jewish categories to them, before being blocked for tendentious editing against consensus. These may perhaps be deleted per WP:G5. Place Clichy (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * From WP:G5: "A page created before the ban or block was imposed [...] will not qualify under this criterion." Armbrust The Homunculus 09:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Query. Should these not be upmerges? Eg Solomon Eliezer Alfandari is not in any other centenarian category. Oculi (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment actually, he is in two other centenarian categories. I also have my doubts about whether being a centenarian is defining. I would nominate them for deletion but there are more than 100 categories involved and I don't know how to do it effectively: see Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion. buidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 17:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I assumed that all articles were already somewhere in which seems more defining. I checked them all and Alfandari was the only one not already in another centenarian category, which I fixed. Place Clichy (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the first three, neutral on "Jewish supercentenarians" There is a recognized connection between Jewish ethnicity and longevity, which has attracted scientific research <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 17:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all Jewish centenarians and such articles don't exist and if they did, they could be nothing but lists; is something special about centenarians in the Jewish religion? If centenarians are defining characteristics, aren't nonagenarians, octogenarians, septuagenarians, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:OCEGRS, Jewish people may become old but not to extraordinary extent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all and listify if liked. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2020 (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:KROQ
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:KROQ to Category:KROQ-FM
 * Nominator's rationale: The main article is KROQ-FM. It was sort of opposed at speedy. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Mild support. If kept, this category should be named as the main article is, but I am still not convinced that individual radio stations have enough related content besides WP:PERFCAT. This category was, I believe, previously deleted in CfD and created again later despite a deletion review endorsing the deletion. (CFD discussion, DRV discussion) Place Clichy (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename/Keep Per WP:C2D to match main article. Whatever the category history, it's well populated and defining now. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral Either way, I'm okay. --evrik (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2020 (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:Supercentenarians by ethnicity
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting supercentenarians by ethnicity


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only content is Category:Jewish supercentenarians. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 01:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. An upmerge is not needed because the content still remains in Category:Supercentenarians by religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. See also above. Place Clichy (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete not relevant. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2020 (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:American Pie (series)
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:American Pie (series) to Category:American Pie (film series)
 * Nominator's rationale: Standard ★Trekker (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2020 (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.

The entire "Locus Award-winning works" tree
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: do as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose Renaming Category:Locus Awards to Category:Lists of Locus Award winners
 * Propose Reparenting Category:Locus Award navigational boxes under Category:Locus (magazine)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Locus Award-winning works
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Locus Award for Best Fantasy Novel winning works
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Locus Award for Best First Novel winning works‎
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Locus Award for Best Horror Novel winning works‎‎
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Locus Award for Best Novel winning works


 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Locus Award for Best Novelette winning works‎
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Locus Award for Best Novella winning works
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Locus Award for Best Science Fiction Novel winning works
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Locus Award for Best Short Story winning works
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Locus Award for Best Young Adult Book winning works


 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD) and the spirit of WP:CRYSTALBALL
 * The Hugo Award is the recognized prize for Science Fiction and is one of the few awards defining enough for a category. Prior to each year's Hugo Award ceremony, Locus magazine has a reader's choice survey called the Locus Awards to predict/suggest who they think should win the Hugo Award. What works might win a Hugo Award doesn't come within a country mile of being defining. All these "winners" are already listified in individual list articles in Category:Locus Awards. (That category is proposed for renaming so that editors using WP:HOTCAT don't inadvertently add individual winners to a list category.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the Hugo, Nebula, and Locus are all defining enough, but some work is needed here:
 * Rename the main category,
 * Keep the navboxes in that parent,
 * Delete the other categories (after checking they're already listified in their parent articles (I think they all are).
 * Grutness... wha?   03:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree on the Nebula being defining, although I think of it more of an award for fantasy writing. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support all per WP:OCAWARD. A derived award based on a survey prediction for a more important award is certainly not meant to be categorized. Moving the navboxes to the main (lists) awards category as User:Grutness suggested is fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT another NN award. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2020 (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:Gatorade National Basketball Player of the Year‎
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Gatorade National Basketball Player of the Year‎
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Gatorade National Girls Soccer Player of the Year
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
 * Gatorade sports drinks gives out the Gatorade Player of the Year awards to American high school athletes in 8 sports and we have categories for 2 of them. This award is definitely defining when the high school athletes receive them but Wikipedia doesn't generally have articles on athletes that peaked in high school. (Even the very inclusive WP:NSPORTS draws a hard line for the WP:NOTABILITY of high school players in the WP:NHSPHSATH section which requires "prolonged coverage" beyond a one-time award.) What we actually have in this category are college and pro athletes who, in their early life/high school section, makes a passing reference to this award. This is a Catch-22 where, when the award is defining enough for a category, they aren't notable enough for an article and, when they're notable enough for an article, the category is no longer defining. The recipients are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent of deleting most halls of fame, player of the year being a si,milar NN awARD (after listifying, if still necessary). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2020 (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.