Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 8

February 8

Category:Pseudoconvex minimization

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 16#Category:Pseudoconvex_minimization. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Pseudoconvex functions
Propose deleting Category:Pseudoconvex minimization
Propose deleting Category:Pseudolinear minimization

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in the three categories jointly. No need to upmerge, the article is already in appropriate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2018 (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:Neighborhoods in Pleasant Grove, Dallas

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: Merge to Category:Neighborhoods in Dallas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Neighborhoods in Pleasant Grove, Dallas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Apparent WP:SMALLCAT - not clear there's room for any other members, and it's not even clear that the one member belongs. —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Neighborhoods in Dallas.--TM 13:32, 13 February 2018 (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:Valentine's Day food

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 16#Category:Valentine's_Day_food. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Valentine's Day food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining inclusion criteria, for a category that just contains a few red sweets. Ibadibam (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not just a random collection of red or pink food; current included articles do have some real world association with the holiday. Has potential for expansion. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 12:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I was a bit hesitant on this one but, per Andros, the articles in here seem to have a concrete connection and one can imagine additional pages like boxed chocolates being added. Chetsford (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, in article Valentine's Day there is no section about food and the articles in this category don't mention any sources related to Valentine's Day either, which makes it rather questionable. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Valentine's Day is mentioned in all three current articles. Read the articles for yourself. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 15:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, but I was referring to sources, not to the article texts. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete I read the sources in the three articles, and found them unconvincing. They are not like a box of chocolates. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2018 (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.