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.
Oppose for now.Delete The category has been emptied out of turn, and cannot be properly evaluated. If the nom would return the pages to the category we could get an idea of whether it was small and unlikely to grow. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is delete, please merge the articles into one, along replacing the deleted with the two categories I've mentioned above, so people can still find them. Thanks.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale This is another violation of the general rule against award winner categories. We have way too many award categories for actors (just go look at how many award categories Helen Hayes is in), we do not need them all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2013 (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:Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology almuni
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The category lists graduates of this university and I suspect the creator intended to write alumni and misspelled it by mistake. Dimadick (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2013 (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.
Merge per nominator, as a WP:SMALLCAT unlikely to expand, but without prejudice to re-creation if and when there are more than 5 articles to populate the category. In the meantime, please re-create as a {{category redirect}}, to assist editors to categorise any further articles which do appear. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 5 September 2013 (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.
Merge per nominator, as a WP:SMALLCAT unlikely to expand, but without prejudice to re-creation if and when there are more than 5 articles to populate the category. In the meantime, please re-create as a {{category redirect}}, to assist editors to categorise any further articles which do appear. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We don't create categories for one entry. I don't see the other faculties being notable enough for additional articles. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's trationale It does not make sense to subdivide this category by country of origin, especially when we do it for only one country. For example, to pick one of the first people in the category, is Edward Albert's being of Mexican descent really at all a factor in the roles he has played? Albert as the son of a Mexican-born woman is actually more clearly Mexican than some of these people, some who have families who have been in the US since annexation. Although I have to admit it is not clear to me from reading his bio that Albert has ever been cast in a role where his ethnicity is really a factor, he was cast in a few roles as a Greek, but is casting a Hispanic as a Greek really casting by ethnicity? I figured though I would go for a compromise. Or was Jessica Alba cast as Sue Storm because she is of Mexican descent?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all please show us reliable sources that "Hispanic and Latino American actors" act differently than their non-Hispanic and Latino American peers. If we cannot, per WP:CATEGRS (see general #1), these should go. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point, but to consider those you will have to tag them. Please do that as a seperate nomination. The issue of splitting our Mexicans as a special case is seperate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepCategory:Hispanic and Latino American actors contains a collection of actors of Spanish, Venezuelan, Puerto Rican, Colombia, Dominican and a variety of other Hispanic ethnic identities (European, Caribbean, Central American and South American birth or heritage).
Keep - The assertion that this and other such categories are flatly disallowed because they are so-called "trivial intersections" ignores the fact that CAT:EGRS is a guideline -- not a "rule" -- and as such is supposed to reflect a concensus among editors. Clearly, there is no such concensus -- and as a matter of fact, there never has been. There has only been an enforced illusion of "concensus", with the guideline being applied as a straightjacket to smother dissent. Cgingold (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2013 (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:Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series Screen Actors Guild Award winners
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale I have to admit I am not convinced that either Screen Actors Guild or Golden Globe Awards make the winner notable. Especially after seeing Liza Minelli who is in 9 award categories, I know we have to start lopping off these awards. However, I really do not feel up to nominating all 29 Golden Globe Award categories. However, this category is especially egregious because it is not won by individuals, but by a group of individuals. Thus, if we had artilces on the ensemble involved, then we could put them there, but the individual articles really do not belong. What next, will we created a category for Category:Golden Rasperry Award for Worst film couple or ensemble and add our possible article on Bennifer to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. If this is for an ensemble why are the individuals who comprised one or more ensembles listed? They are not what the award was for but rather part of a group. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no clue. I was hoping someone else would give an answer. My best guess is that it is because people figured there was a need to tag some article for winning these awards. Generally I would say awards for organizations and groups are even less likely to be truly notable to the designated entity than awards for individuals. If someone is named teacher of the year for the state of California, that is a much bigger honor, assuming there is only one, than school of the year. Especially since if someone was so designated in 1940, we would assume they were probably a good teacher for most of their career. If a school was so designated in 1940, it might be the lowest performing school in California today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one page, which does not mention a library. Could be recreated in the future if it ever ends up being needed. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories for this should contain articles that are explicitly on libraries, not on things that contain libraries. Thus this category should be empty and should be deleted as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculous, yes. Do we add Amusements parks in Antarctica with amusement parks by continent just because Antarctica is a continent, also, even if it doesn't have an amusement park? Totally useless, deleted. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale This is way to common an award, shown by the fact we openly admit we will not even have articles on all of them. It also tends to be awarded to people who are notable for other things, and likely to get other awards, leading to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there a blanket exception for "national awards" in the awards category. National awards in many ways are the worst offenders. We need to start trimming the award tree. We have way too many awards and way to many people in over 5 award categories. We need to start eliminating them. We have too much category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have many categories for recipients of relatively minor awards, many of them far more minor than this. It is not an award like a campaign medal given to all who served in a particular place. It is given to a specific individual for a specific reason. It's not even the lowest grade of the order - bizarrely you haven't nominated the lower two for deletion! In general, we have categories for all national awards given to people on a discretionary basis, but not those given on a non-discretionary basis. No reason to make an exception here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2013 (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.
Keep. Categorizes a notable award from a highly notable organization, one of the most prestigious LGBT-related honors bestowed each year. Categories help our readers (and ourselves) find things and discover connections, and this one seems quite useful in that regard. Rivertorch (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being notable is not the criteria for creating award categories. If we categorized by every award that is notable, we would have way, way more category clutter than we now have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For example we do not categorize people by having won the BET Awards. As I have made clear elsewhere I am of the view we have way too many award categories, but we need to start somewhere to get rid of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not as sure as you are that category clutter is a big problem, I take your point about notability not being the criterion. Changing my "keep" !vote to provisional delete per Peterkingiron's suggestion below. I'm willing to help "listify" it (my god, what a word), although my time will be limited for the next several days. Rivertorch (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then delete -- GLAAD Media Award is not that prominent to my mind. GLAAD is making a lot of awards. Lists do the job much better, because they place the winners in chronological order and can provide brief details of the citation. WP:OC#AWARD applies. We probably need one list for each award with a parent category Category:GLAAD Media Awards.
I checked 12 sample pages from the category, by the selecting the last entry under each of 12 letters of the alphabet. Only 1 case showed any sign of the award being even possibly defining.
Only one article (Megan Mullally) mentioned the award in the lede, and that lede is probably over-detailed.
So whatever the significance of the award to the wider world, it is clearly not a very significant part of the lives of most of its recipients. This sort of info belongs in a list rather than a category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of nom and BHG above. Note: the Megan Mullally article says "She ... appeared in guest-starring roles in television programs such as ... and a GLAAD Award-winning episode of ..." so it's the programme that won the award, not her. DexDor (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the award itself is notable doesn't necessarily mean that we need a single catch-all category for everybody who's ever won one. For starters, it's not a single award that's presented in a single domain of achievement, but rather a series of awards presented for different achievements — meaning that this category, as constituted, randomly mixes actors, broadcasters, screenwriters, directors and producers, some of whom won the award for their creative work and others of whom won it for their offscreen activism instead — and there's even one film sitting in this category, to boot. Which is why a category for this is such an exercise in sheer inutility: it's not grouping people by their status as winners of a shared award, but by their status as winners of a diversity of awards whose only common element is the parent organization that granted them. Winning one also isn't a defining characteristic of the recipients, in that, unlike an Emmy or an Oscar or a Pulitzer, it's not an award you would ordinarily expect to see noted right in an article's introductory paragraph. The award lists themselves are sufficient for the necessary purpose. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2013 (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:Public transportation in the San Fernando Valley Area
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.
