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. MER-C 11:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Awesome Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: All Wikipedians are awesome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even those who are cunts? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTSOCIAL Wikipedia is not a social club. We should not be adding non-collaboratory user social status to wikipedia. -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• See also this earlier discussion (no consensus). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DexDor in the previous discussion (-> who is authorized to judge if someone should be in this category?) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All Wikipedians are awesome. Neutrality^talk 16:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This relates somewhat to the old award given out by Rlevse and then picked up by Gerda Arendt. I restored it when I was still an admin just as something to play with a bit. I have no problem with seeing it put to bed so no more time is wasted on CFDing it. INeverCry 23:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I didn't make it nor care, but care about the editor who put me in and said I was not allowed to revert. (I would have reverted.) - I put only one in: Eric. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSOCIAL. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 6#Category:Bizarre wikipedians. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have been trying to remember how this started but the comment above reminds that it was from the awards given out by Rlevse. Yes, it is time for it to go, for the reasons given above. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:26, 6 June 2015 (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. MER-C 11:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Quill Award ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Quill Award winners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Quill Award winning works ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A very minor award, created by a company and run for only three years. See Quill Award. As that lists all the winners and works neither sub category needs to exist, which makes the parent category redundant.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as creator) - categories are there to help readers and no evidence has been adduced that these categories have ceased to be helpful. It is not correct the the award was created 'by a company'. It was created by the Quill Foundation, set up for this purpose, and backed by many leading organisations in the literary field. Neither that this may be a 'minor' award nor that it lasted just 3 years is any reason for deletion. Deletion removes a helpful tool for interested readers and should only happen if it is in some way harmful and, IMHO, it is not. As a footnote, I should like to thank the nominator, JohnBlackburne, for the courtesy of notifying me of this discussion. Just Chilling (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the article refs are dead but here's one that's not: [1] "Just a few days after putting its magazine division on the block, Reed has now pulled the plug on its Quills Awards program". But it doesn't matter: it's not a major, defining award: even it had lasted longer it would very likely not be. So per WP:OCAWARD it should have a category or categories for winners.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, per WP:OC#AWARD, per my essay and because having this award is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of, for example, To Kill a Mockingbird. DexDor ^(talk) 04:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree that this is nondefining. Neutrality^talk 16:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a list exists, which can do the job much better. Offends against WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2015 (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. MER-C 11:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Association of Independent Technological Universities ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: That a university/college is a member of this organization is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the university/college. E.g. many of the articles make no mention of the organization in the article text (e.g. CMU, MIT). For info: there is a list at Association_of_Independent_Technological_Universities#Member_institutions. For info: This is one of a series of CFDs for similar categories (e.g. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_17#Category:North_Central_Association_of_Colleges_and_Schools). DexDor ^(talk) 06:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nondefining, duplicative of the list in the main article. Some consortia are defining, but not this one. Neutrality^talk 16:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete according to recent but frequent for membership of associations of universities. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2015 (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.