The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply a POV category... bogdan 23:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To match Category:Racecar drivers--Mike Selinker 20:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Uhh.. I don't think we need this category. Nonsense basically as it is a parody of Category:Living people. This category is hardly not even used either. Moe ε 19:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 15:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes more sense to have a general athletics category. Two of the entries, Memorial Field (Dartmouth) and Dartmouth College athletic teams are already general athletics. Also fits better with new subcategorization scheme of Category:Dartmouth College --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 21:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedied already. Syrthiss 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Improper capitalisation. Haakon 14:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 15:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reason these should be different categories. They seem like synonyms.--Mike Selinker 08:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be replaced by [Category:Television stations in Argentina], to be more consistent in wording with most nations listed in Category:Television stations. This should have been a cfm in retrospect. Dl2000 06:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC). Support per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename would make this more consistent with most nations listed in Category:Television stations. Dl2000 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 15:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category; should merge to Television stations in Indonesia category which is more consistent naming compared to most nations in Category:Television stations Dl2000 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contains no articles, only alumni subcats for some Oxbridge women's and formerly-women's colleges. Since most Oxbridge colleges have been coed for decades, most Oxbridge women will not in fact be included in these subcats (and some men will be). Also, lumping Oxford and Cambridge together screws up category hierarchy and promotes Oxbridge myth. Also sexist. —Blotwell 05:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Badly capitalised, not pluralised, from text and existing supercategorisation very unclear scope. Sounds like a gender-based split of Category:Filipino actors -- but probably isn't. Alai 04:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the movies spoofed the Bond films doesn't mean the categories have to spoof the Bond categories. The movies were funny and popular, but Austin Powers never spawned anything like Category:Bond girls, a cultural...um...phenomenon...in its own right, spanning decades, and Bond girl is actually a rather substantial article. Austin Powers girl is rather nonexistant. The phrase "Bond girl" gets more than 2.7 million Google hits.[1] "Austin Powers girl" gets 598, of which this category is the first hit.[2] Seeing as the internet's main task is to archive sexy pictures, I think these findings are highly relevant. Delete. Postdlf 03:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Syrthiss 14:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Redundant category (a copy of Category:New Line Cinema films). (Ibaranoff24 03:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 14:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the more widely-used "Manga artists" category. Since Japanese comic-book artists are arguably the same thing as manga artists, I believe that the section is redundant. One might make a special case for Yoshitaka Amano, who has drawn for Neil Gaiman's Sandman series, but the way the category was being used was exactly the same as the category for actual manga artists. Julian Grybowski 03:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Deleted by Postdlf -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedily Deleted by Freakofnurture -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Delete. This should be a Wikipedian category. I already created a replacement at Category:Wikipedians interested in firearms and it is populated with the few items that were in Firearm experts. —Kenyon (t·c) 01:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 14:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: brand new category that is a dupe of an existing category (Category:Reality television participants) -- MisterHand 00:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]