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 06:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt to link together articles about motor neuron disease by an archaic acronym. Improperly named and unlikely to cover more than a tiny amount of articles. JFW | T@lk 23:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. JFW | T@lk 23:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category:Motor Neuron Disease is hardly overpopulated, and this category only has three articles (one of which, Lou Gehrig, doesn't even really belong). siafu 14:44, 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 Rename K1Bond007 06:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horse races don't have a nation. "By country" is more conventional for sport categories. Calsicol 13:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 14:44, 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 No consensus K1Bond007 06:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are similar categories Wisesabre 12:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's rather odd for this page to replace Wikipedians/Pakistan(i)s or be the main page for Wikipedians familiar with Pakistan. I don't live in Pakistan, but I am a Pakistani...

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC) copied from Category talk:Wikipedians in Pakistan

• The second category should either be deleted or renamed to Category:Non-Pakistani Wikipedians in Pakistan. Since I doubt that the latter would get much use (and, when used, would likely be subject to change), delete it and keep Category:Pakistani Wikipedians. -Sean Curtin 04:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both. Nonencyclopedic, vanity categories. 12.73.196.52 01:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Pakistani wikipedians is much better . Since there are a lot of Pakistanis out there who arnt in Pakistan , they are Pakistani Wpedians & Wpedians in xxxxcountry . We have similar categories for India & Israel too . Farhansher 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Category:Wikipedians_in_Pakistan (should i merge them?) --Wisesabre 03:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Categories by location and by ethnic background should not be mixed up. — Instantnood 18:09, 31 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 06:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to put these two attributes together, that I can see. Delete. SCZenz 06:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This must be joke, not an serious category. Pavel Vozenilek 08:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not useful. Calsicol 13:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Little to no value. Cacophony 21:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Though this category has as much value as Category:Roman Catholic actors it does not, however, seem to be merited by having just one article. siafu 14:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteShe´s really an agnostic, as the imdb shows. So, I think the ideal should be include more agnostic actors in that category, because there are many. Some of the actors in the Roman Catholic actors category aren´t also catholic anymore.

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 MarkGallagher

Lost a CFD debate a year ago (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Unfair games) and closing admin User:RedWolf, when asked why it's still with us, proposes admin error. —Blotwell 05:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Calsicol 13:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Category listed for speedy deletion based on CFD result Soltak | Talk 22:54, 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 Delete K1Bond007 06:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TBS is a cable channel that happens to have a broadcast outlet. However, there is only one, and so this category is practically useless. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnecessary. tregoweth 04:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.With only one there's no need for it.--Dakota ^{? e} 07:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 14:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and smack the creator upside the head with a TV Guide. Bearcat 09:04, 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 K1Bond007 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely subjective, hard-to-define category. Lumps together such figures as James Dean, Martin Luther King, Albert Einstein, and Aivar Voitka without much in the way of case-by-case explanation. Andrew Levine 00:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons given by Andrew Levine Golfcam 03:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for above reasons. tregoweth 04:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If I remember similar categories - icon of this or icon of that - got deleted in the past. Pavel Vozenilek 08:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for vagueness and per precendent. -Sean Curtin 04:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete much too vague

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 Keep (no consensus to delete) K1Bond007 06:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is 1 article in this category and not much potential for growth (I Know that could be interpenetrated as POV but the album has not been released yet by a one year delay, so her musical career is yet to enter its infancy)--Alan Frize 22:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As mentioned, that one album has not even been released. In any event, a category is pretty well useless if it only contains one entry. Soltak | Talk 22:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First, you sholdn't blank / orphan a category when listing it on CfD (and I've fixed the CfD template). Also single album categories are standard - from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Categories: Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future). --Vclaw 02:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to maintain category structure integrity. -Sean Curtin 04:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Non-existent membership. Creating it again in a couple years is not a problem, if needed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, to conform to the WikiProject Albums guidelines. Teklund 17:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are thousands of albums in "Category:Albums by artist". Some of them are one-hit wonders. Hilton's albums is not even a hit, but it would be better to hunt for such categories that have NO entries first, which I expect has not been done. This Hilton album is also not exceptional: there are lots of other TV/movie stars that put out an album or two, to the chagrin of some. -- 71.198.189.137 21:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at least until there are actual albums to include. tregoweth 23:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article has nowhere else to live, unless you count the odd Category:Upcoming albums. There are many categories with just one entry, and this one's fine too (the category, not the album).--Mike Selinker 08:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's odd about Category:Upcoming albums? That's exactly what the album in question is, and that's exactly where it belongs. Soltak | Talk 18:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, that category's fine, it's just not where I would look for an album by Paris Hilton. I think it's reasonable to put Chinese Democracy (album) under Category:Guns N' Roses albums as well as Category:Upcoming albums; therefore, I think the Paris Hilton category is reasonable.--Mike Selinker 02:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for consistency - there is no difference between this and any other single-album artist's category. Category:Upcoming albums is an additional, not replacement, category. sjorford (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2006 (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.