Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 18

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. – Fayenatic London 10:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Stub template redirects to Category:Redirects to stub templates

Nominator's rationale: Per others in Category:Redirects to templates, and more specific. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Curbon7 (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Her Pegship (?) 19:10, 22 February 2022 (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: rename. – Fayenatic London 16:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Mayors of an arrondissement of Paris to Category:Mayors of arrondissements of Paris

Nominator's rationale: The current "an" makes it hard to find this category through the search bar. There is no problem with putting the plural in the title like Category:Mayors of places in France (and every other country), it does not make the reader think that the mayor was in charge of more than one place. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Current title is terrible. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2022 (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: Moved to an RfC. I withdraw my nomination of this category since a wider RfC is needed. Please follow up on this at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Categorise_male_footballers_in_the_same_way_that_we_categorise_female_footballers. Mike Peel (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Swiss footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category seems to have separated male and female football players into different categories, but has kept male footballers as the main category. Suggest moving most articles to Category:Swiss male footballers to match the female subcategory. Mike Peel (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is standard for all countries, I believe. Moreover there is no Category:Male footballers. Oculi (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose per Oculi. No objection when and if there is broad consensus at WP:FOOTBALL to split all countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi and Marcocapelle: I thought there was general consensus across Wikipedia to not segregate articles about women like this, but I'm not sure where that's written down. I've asked (and invited people to participate in this discussion) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Footballers_have_'Women'_subcategories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - this needs wider discussion at WT:FOOTBALL, and further to consensus at this CfD which overwhelmingly said such categories should not be split. GiantSnowman 12:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment responses at the English footballers CfD opposed a split of one country's category, but supported discussion about splitting Category:Association football players. TSventon (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we split all the footballer categories into male and female? They are operationally speaking seperate sports, as far as I understand it. This works for actors and actresses. Rathfelder (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose per Oculi. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose but wider nom needed -- There are few sports where men and women compete together. They do in equestrian sports and shooting, but hardly elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi, Marcocapelle, GiantSnowman, TSventon, Rathfelder, and Peterkingiron: OK, I started a wider discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Categorise_male_footballers_in_the_same_way_that_we_categorise_female_footballers, this CfD can be counted as  Request withdrawn pending that wider discussion. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2022 (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: no consensus to delete, so rename both. – Fayenatic London 14:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Films directed by Alan Smithee to Category:Films credited to Alan Smithee

Nominator's rationale: Misleading, the films were not directed by this fictional person. ★Trekker (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Same also applies to its sibling category Category:Music videos directed by Alan Smithee.★Trekker (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Alan Smithee, this credit was also used for writing credit. Should the type of credit be added to the category name? Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment, the sibling category has not been tagged yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I have added a tag now.★Trekker (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic of the films. If kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2022 (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: rename. – Fayenatic London 14:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Template:4-polytopes-stub to Template:4-polytope-stub
• Propose renaming Category:4-polytopes stubs to Category:4-polytope stubs (added 18 Feb 2022)

Nominator's rationale: Not sure why this should be pluralised, especially considering {{Polyhedron-stub}}. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support seems to have been an accident, when performing a move to this from an old name, it seems MarkH21 followed the category, which is pluralized as Category:4-polytopes. Curbon7 (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, shouldn't Category:4-polytopes stubs be renamed for the same reason? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @1234qwer1234qwer4 and Curbon7: please reply to the above question. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes Curbon7 (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this should apply to both the template and the category. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagging the category as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 09:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that was needed, since only one of these is usually discussed in the case of stubs, but thanks anyway. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, names of stub types are conventionally singular. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:12, 21 February 2022 (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: no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Bangladesh Liberation War poems to Category:Works about the Bangladesh Liberation War and Category:War poetry

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- There is scope for more articles to be written about the numerous notable poems on the war. It can be kept because it does have realistic potential for growth (cat creator).Vinegarymass911 (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The category can be recreated if those numerous articles actually appear, until then it is a crystal ball matter. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 18 February 2022 (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: delete. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 14:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Software that uses Lenslok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF. Use of a specific form of copy protection is not defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is almost nothing about it in the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: not defining. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2022 (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: delete. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 14:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Video games using code wheel copy protection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF. Use of a specific form of copy protection is not defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is almost nothing about it in the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is not defining.--Alexandra^IDV 08:24, 23 February 2022 (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: delete. The later participants set out the policy justifications for deletion, and considered that these outweigh the earlier arguments presented for keeping the category. Note: I will selectively add some contents to some parent categories. – Fayenatic London 14:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Bathsheba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, the category is mainly populated with people associated with Bathsheba which we avoid per WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The nominator already created a subcategory to move out most of the original category's content. Dimadick (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but how is that relevant? The subcategory can be kept while the main category can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as it is WP:N. IZAK (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not relevant here. Every article is WP:N but not every article has an eponymous category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DONOTDEMOLISH & WP:CHANCE. IZAK (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think you can improve the content of the category, just give it a go. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: Restore what you moved out of this category, and there are more than enough items in the category as is. WP:OCASSOC does not apply when you have direct relationships and sources citing the subject. All subjects in the Hebrew Bible are inherently connected to each other. According to you you may as well delete thousands of similar Biblical and Jewish categories. Stop cherry picking targets to delete just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. IZAK (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 22:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. 22:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 22:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- With the possible exception of Lemuel all those appearing are part of the story of Bathsheba. This is different from the vague associates of a modern person or movement. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an inappropriate eponymous category. People merely being associated with some character (whether real, legendary, or entirely fictional) is not sufficient grounds for an eponymous category, and categories shouldn't be genealogical trees either... There are otherwise no sub-topic articles about the eponymous subject which could possibly justify an eponymous category (unlike, with, say, the exception that proves the rule, Category:Albert Einstein, or any other highly-notable figure [which this is clearly not]). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is more like a "People associated with Foo" category which is frowned on. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. This is being used as "People associated with Foo" which isn't really correct. None of the articles are corely related to Bathsheba, just people whom her story intersected with. SnowFire (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2022 (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: delete. – Fayenatic London 14:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ahasuerus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEPON, the relevant articles are about the Book of Esther and already part of Category:Book of Esther or Category:Paintings of Esther. We do not need an eponymous category of someone who was not even the main character in a relatively small book. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Several of these articles have nothing to do with the Book of Esther. Dimadick (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from what has been mentioned before there are Artaxerxes II and Xerxes I in the category but "Ahasueras" is not a defining characteristic of them. They are very well known among historians as Persian kings and the fact that they are mentioned by biblical scholars as a possible identification with Ahasueras is completely trivial to these kings. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as it is WP:N. IZAK (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not relevant here. Every article is WP:N but not every article has an eponymous category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DONOTDEMOLISH & WP:CHANCE. IZAK (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think you can improve the content of the category, just give it a go. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: Restore what you moved out of this category, and there are more than enough items in the category as is. WP:OCASSOC does not apply when you have direct relationships and sources citing the subject. All subjects in the Hebrew Bible are inherently connected to each other. According to you you may as well delete thousands of similar Biblical and Jewish categories. Stop cherry picking targets to delete just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. IZAK (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 22:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. 22:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 22:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Look at the main article which refers to several biblical books. The question of how to identify the Biblical Ahasuerus with Persian kings whom we know better by the Greek versions of their names may be a matter of scholastic controversy, which cannot be addressed through a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:SMALLCAT. Every article that should be included in this is already logically in Category:Book of Esther, and the others are hypothetical identities which shouldn't be included in either (as they are not DEFCAT); thus leaving only a few articles, not enough to justify a dedicated sub-category. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This category is not helpful, Xerxes and other real life possible identifications are not defined by maybe inspiring this legendary figure. Everything else belongs in The Book of Esther category.★Trekker (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is more like a "People associated with Foo" category which is frowned on. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and Laurel Lodged. SnowFire (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2022 (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: delete. – Fayenatic London 14:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ahab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, the category mainly consists of people associated with Ahab, which we do not categorize per WP:OCASSOC plus a few tangentially related articles. The only proper article in the category is Battle of Qarqar. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Since when we do not categorize associations? We have Category:People by association and Category:People associated with Alexander the Great. Dimadick (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OCASSOC has existed for at least as long as I have been editing on this platform. The very first category that I created was deleted for this very reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as it is WP:N. IZAK (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not relevant here. Every article is WP:N but not every article has an eponymous category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DONOTDEMOLISH & WP:CHANCE. IZAK (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think you can improve the content of the category, just give it a go. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: Restore what you moved out of this category, and there are more than enough items in the category as is. WP:OCASSOC does not apply when you have direct relationships and sources citing the subject. All subjects in the Hebrew Bible are inherently connected to each other. According to you you may as well delete thousands of similar Biblical and Jewish categories. Stop cherry picking targets to delete just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. IZAK (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 22:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. 22:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 22:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unnecessary eponymous category, as there are simply not enough articles about individual sub-topics of this person to justify a category. Categories are not supposed to be genealogical trees either, which is however the only purpose this seems to be serving. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is more like a "People associated with Foo" category which is frowned on. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and Laurel Lodged. SnowFire (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (restating the obvious: WP:OCASSOC) ButlerBlog (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2022 (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.