The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arts → Category:Fine arts . This whole Art vs. Arts nomenclature is irritating for the user. Clearly, "Arts" should be "Fine arts". I will do all the updates in the pages and cats that are needed (and there are a lot of them). -- Fplay 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was done as a DELETE!!! Art vs. Arts never worked well. We should also kill "Category:Arts" in the Commons area and anywhere else that it has proliferated. The rec-catting of pages and other cats has already been effectively accomplished in a very unilateral way. The collaboration/committee approach would never have gotten this one sorted out. For all the hair splitting, see "Category:Fine arts" and page "The Arts". -- Fplay 15:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Both should probably go. Opera and theatre are not fine arts as I understand normal usage. Just put them all in "culture". CalJW 08:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Opera and theater are "fine arts", at least as far as the various academies of fine arts are concered. This will likely work better than "art" vs. "the arts". siafu 19:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let us DELETE "Category:Pop culture". Here is the deal: Wikipedia:Browse says "Popular culture", as does the page. I have switched the roles of the Category and the Category-redirect. I want "Pop culture" to complete go away and for us to always use "Popular Culture". Again, the rename is already a fait d'accompli . Let us finish the job. Users who use the Browse interface will benefit for consistent usage: "Popular culture" only. -- Fplay 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Popular culture, then delete per nom. -Sean Curtin 04:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 23:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated Category:Sports executives - no reason to disallow executives of amateur organizations. Only included subcat for NBA execs, which I revised to a subcat of Basketball execs. MisfitToys 22:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Deano 23:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (and listify) -- Rick Block (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is inappropriate because it's not a defining feature of the cities it categorizes. Look, for example, at Dublin - according to its categories, it's a capital of Europe, a coastal city, part of Ireland, etc... and a host city of this one specific contest. This category is better handled as a list within Eurovision Song Contest or a related article. CDC (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• listify and delete. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify - per nom. Devalues other categories on city pages. Deano 23:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep'. Well I wrote the thing, so you may think that I am biased, but cities like London and Nagano are listed as host cities of the Summer/Winter Olympics aren't they? Also I saw that Munich is listed under the hosting of the FIFA World Cup. Blnguyen 04:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've nominated Category:Host Cities of FIFA World Cup for deletion also. The Olympics categories are just about notable enough, I think. sjorford (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Grutness, & in atonement for my keep for 709 Brown. Metarhyme 07:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Necrothesp 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial in relation to the cities. The Olympics categort is debabatable too, but hosting the Olympics makes hundreds of times as much impact on a city as hosting Eurovision. CalJW 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify per nom. Neier 13:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 23:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two similar categories for Nunavut and the Yukon have been proposed for deletion. This one, like the others, is unlikely to grow. Mindmatrix 20:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessary overcategorization. I also note (as Mindmatrix knows, but others may not) that this was created by a user who once individually filed Trans-Canada Highway in all ten "Transportation in (individual Canadian province)" categories. So his sense of how to apply categorization is, to say the least, a bit odd. Bearcat 19:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Never going to have more than one entry. -- Necrothesp 21:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, duplicated at Category:Languages of the Republic of Macedonia. MeltBanana 19:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - read Republic of Macedonia for reasons why this is a no-go area. Deano 23:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Either delete or turn into a ((categoryredirect)). — Instantnood 19:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 23:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created by my personal error, now empty and replaced by Category:Grammar schools in Devon. Deano 19:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bkwillwm 21:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does the reason make this a speedy? Vegaswikian 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete of category created in error. Metarhyme 07:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename K1Bond007 23:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Rename to Category:Computer peripherals. Mirror Vax 18:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 19:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? The files are known as device drivers, not as peripheral drivers. Your reasoning? Metarhyme 07:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• "peripherals" is the standard term (and the term used by the corresponding Wikipedia articles). Mirror Vax 18:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically, Peripheral and Peripheral device (incidentally, these articles are redundant). In general, a category should use the same terminology as its head article. And "peripheral" is the standard term. "Device" is so vague it could mean anything. Mirror Vax 18:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like folders vs. directories I guess. Peripherals then if you dislike devices. Metarhyme 03:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, Pavel Vozenilek 03:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 19:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, More common name than "device." I didn't even know what the category was until I clicked on it. As it stands now it could mean computers themselves. --Pboyd04 23:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 23:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The category is empty and without purpose, because of Category:Off-Broadway. Off-Broadway (with the hyphen) is the more common, and "official" way to spell the term. — warpedmirror (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. -- Reinyday, 19:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The JPS 00:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename all ("of") K1Bond007 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of sub-categories of Category:Supermarkets follow the wording of "Supermarkets in country". However, some use the word "of", and one uses the wording "Fooian supermarkets". The following renamings are proposed so that there is one standard naming convention for supermarkets by country:

• Category:Supermarkets of Belgium to Category:Supermarkets in Belgium
• Category:Supermarkets of Germany to Category:Supermarkets in Germany
• Category:Supermarkets of Sweden to Category:Supermarkets in Sweden
• Category:Supermarkets of Turkey to Category:Supermarkets in Turkey
• Category:British supermarkets to Category:Supermarkets in the United Kingdom

Kurieeto 18:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nominator. -- Reinyday, 19:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom. Standardisation all the way! Deano 23:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is not standardisation, but rather a breach of policy. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) states, "By-country subcategories of all <company type> by country categories are named ... of country" Rename all "Supermarkets of". Carina22 00:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Carina22 is correct, my original proposal by mistake was not one that followed the "of country" conventions outlined in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) for companies. I'm withdrawing my original proposal and instead proposing the following renamings to match conventions:

• Category:Supermarkets in Canada to Category:Supermarkets of Canada
• Category:Supermarkets in Finland to Category:Supermarkets of Finland
• Category:Supermarkets in France to Category:Supermarkets of France
• Category:Supermarkets in Hong Kong to Category:Supermarkets of Hong Kong
• Category:Supermarkets in Japan to Category:Supermarkets of Japan
• Category:Supermarkets in Mexico to Category:Supermarkets of Mexico
• Category:Supermarkets in the Netherlands to Category:Supermarkets of the Netherlands
• Category:Supermarkets in Romania to Category:Supermarkets of Romania
• Category:Supermarkets in Peru to Category:Supermarkets of Peru
• Category:British supermarkets to Category:Supermarkets of the United Kingdom
• Category:Supermarkets in the United States to Category:Supermarkets of the United States

--Kurieeto 02:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all - standardisation all the way! Deano 16:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to "of". CalJW 08:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 19:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename K1Bond007 23:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of Category:Commercial fishing are more aptly described by the words "Fishing industry". The primary article of Category:Commercial fishing is Fishing industry as well. Kurieeto 15:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 19:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - possible subcat - "fishing industry" suggests a wider area than just "commercial fishing". Deano 23:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 19:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 23:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can only ever have one entry, which is already categorised under Category:Law enforcement agencies of Canada. Necrothesp 14:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category is unlikely to grow. Indefatigable 15:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-starter. Deano 23:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary overcategorization. I also note that this was created by a user who once individually filed Trans-Canada Highway in all ten "Transportation in (individual Canadian province)" categories. So his sense of how to apply categorization is, to say the least, a bit odd. Bearcat 19:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can only ever have one entry, which is already categorised under Category:Law enforcement agencies of Canada. Necrothesp 14:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category is unlikely to grow. Indefatigable 15:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-starter. Deano 23:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary overcategorization. I also note that this was created by a user who once individually filed Trans-Canada Highway in all ten "Transportation in (individual Canadian province)" categories. So his sense of how to apply categorization is, to say the least, a bit odd. Bearcat 19:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, it could grow if some First Nations decided to set up their own police forces. This was tried in the early 1990s by the Kwanlin Dün First Nation, but delete anyway as overcategorization. Luigizanasi 21:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category is not needed as the articles cover the same information. There is only a handful of articles that could go in here anyway. Delete, but at the very least, needs renaming. The JPS 12:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category has four members, and the article does not indicate this as a topic needing a category in the first place. siafu 19:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no need to rename or remove this category as there are other articles to be put under it which just havent been put there yet, Sorry not everyone is as fast as you and can do everything in a millesecond (The JPS). --MatthewFenton 11:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on your tak page, respectfully asking you not to remove the cfd tag until the discussion has finished. An administrator will remove it when appropriate. The JPS 14:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 23:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category is not needed as the main article Spira covers all the regions and locations in FFX Delete Chanlord 11:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Chanlord's reasons. ~ Hibana 20:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Deano 23:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it encourages separating the Spira article into separate articles for each area, resulting in a greater standard of information Cynical 22:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• All the information you need is in one article Spira. They were merged not long ago, into one article from a number of stubs because it's better that way. FFX doesn't need 10+ articles on different cities in the game. It would mostly be fancruft. And it's been standardised like other Lists of Final Fantasy locations. And any more new articles that emerge would just be merged into the main article, leaving this category empty. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Chanlord 23:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 13:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is covered in lists. Deckiller 14:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category is not needed as the main article Vana'diel covers all the regions and locations in FFXI (or at least it will) Delete Chanlord 10:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Chanlord's reasons. ~ Hibana 20:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Deano 23:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 14:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename K1Bond007 23:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Content counts are not usually included in category titles. The Pan African Parliament may change the number of permanent committees it has at any time.Rename. Carina22 07:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Good idea. siafu 14:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 23:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inane category with no useful benefit. Are we going to add categories for wife-beaters too? How about pedophiles? -- Jbamb 05:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, we do have a category for pedophiles. If you want to make a category for people convicted (including guilty pleas) or known by historians to be guilty of domestic violence, go ahead. Firebug 05:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know why I won't? Because it's puerile and of no possible benefit. It's trivia, at best. Or should we start surfing the pages of National Enquirer to pad our biographies? -- Jbamb 05:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I am unable to think of any way this category would be more useful to our end users than just listing the fact in each article that the subject was convicted of drunk driving. The category doesn't serve to add information to articles, only group them, and I can think of a lot more useful criteria for grouping than whether they drove drunk. silsor 05:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Category:Criminals subcategory Category:Drunk drivers or be fair and add traffic offense categories speeder, jaywalker, noleftturnturner; and while you're at it potsmoker, spitteronsidewalks and all the rest of them. Metarhyme 06:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Drunk driving has a greater stigma in American society than any of the above offenses. Firebug 11:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup - a victimless crime taken to be on a par with child molestation. Why can't the drunks smoke pot or do lines? They are low despicable people a NPOV properly stigmatizes. Metarhyme 22:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• We've had Category:Drunk drivers before, it was renamed to Category:People convicted of drunk driving and then deleted. Edward 08:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of stigmas around, shall we add categories for adulterers, fornicators, porn site operators? -- Jbamb 15:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation. Radiant_>|< 16:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. Unless a person's criminal record is in and of itself noteworthy (as opposed to being "notable" just because the person involved was notable), this is pointless. In most cases, I'm certain, people are included on the list by others wishing to humiliate them. --EngineerScotty 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, agree with R. -- Jbamb 22:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Radiant. --Dvyost 17:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The category is useful for someone writing an article on drunk driving, plus drunk driving is a crime because it can result in accidentally killing other people, whether they be pedestrians, or drivers and passengers of other vehicles. It is likely there are cases where the passengers of the drunk driver got killed, but I don't have any to cite.
  • Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a good source - driving while intoxicated is very irresponsible. When caught, if no one's hurt, the drunk driver gets a cell in which to sleep it off as a prelude to a variety of punishments. If someone is killed, murder has been committed and Category:Murderers is appropriate on the bio of the perpetrator. Metarhyme 23:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hackwrench 18:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete uri budnik 08:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as has been noted, there are categories for pedophiles and murderers. There are many good reasons for this category, and it would be silly to delete it again - it has been recreated because it serves a purpose. It is harmless and can be useful for research purposes. --Dschor 11:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also has been noted that this was previously deleted and has since been created. -- Jbamb 14:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as before. siafu 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep its not slander if its true. This category is not for gossip. If there is no evidence of drunk driving people don't belong in the category. All of the "delete" votes are reasons why certain people should not be included in the category if their drunk driving is either unproven or unnotable. Most of the discussion that I have read elsewhere on this is on the George W. Bush article in which case his drunk driving is hugely notable because the issue came out days before the 2000 election. Savidan 09:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BUT Rename - the category name as it is suggests non-factual information. If it were renamed to Category:Convicted Drunk Drivers or something to that effect, then it serves a factual purpose and is neither slander nor gossip. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 11:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Created before. Must be a reason why it keeps coming back. Mirror Vax 01:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepBut change as per Deano. If it can be factually proven then it is okay for wikipedia--God of War 06:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Pointless grouping of disparate people. No problem with mentioning drunk driving convictions in articles but what do you gain by grouping them togther? I suspect the category exists to subvert NPOV. User:Alex
• Delete For reasons above. Trilemma 00:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by Radiant! K1Bond007 06:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a category. It's about a band who tries to use wikipedia as promotion. Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedied. Radiant_>|< 16:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename K1Bond007 22:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Multinational corporations to Category:Multinational companies
• Category:Transnational corporations headquartered in Hong Kong to Transnational companies headquartered in Hong Kong

As per types of companies, all corporations are companies, but not all companies are corporations. There's no need for these categories to restrict themselves to the narrower scope of corporations instead of companies. Kurieeto 00:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Mayumashu 02:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename If been thinking of nominating this, but have been reluctant to do so as it is an American/British English usage issue to some extent. Carina22 07:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 19:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• I abstain from the vote, but I would note that there are many examples of corporations (i.e. incorporated entities) which are not companies in the sense of the article (i.e. commercial enterprises). I suspect none of these are in the category, so this observation is probably moot. --EngineerScotty 21:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - completely agree with all above arguments.
• Rename, though I don't know that there are many (any?) transnational companies which are not corporations. siafu 20:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge K1Bond007 23:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to merge the former into the latter, as these categories have near duplicate scopes, and because a corporation is a type of company. Kurieeto 00:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I'd rather delete both, but I don't think there is much chance of getting rid of all the multinationals categories. Carina22 08:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. No argument. siafu 20:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.