The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Though I can understand the reason this exists, to match similar categories for other countries, it is likely to be a significant problem as far as New Zeraland is concerned.The term "villager" is rarely used in New Zealand for settlements or townships - when it is, it almost always refers to a planned community, irrespective of its size. What's more, the equivalent terms that are used (settlement and community) have very vague definitions, such that the line between them and townships and towns is very blurred, as indeed is the line between town and city or suburb (see below). Though the reason for the category is clear, its use is ambiguous and problematic, which is why the wider Category:Cities, towns and communities in New Zealand is the one actually in use. I suggest merger with the latter. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge. This category is almost empty. --Bduke (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge. "Village" is effectively just a marketing term in New Zealand. -- Avenue (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 17:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As above, the term town is pretty vaguely used in new Zealand, with the line between town, township and community blurring at the lower end, and town and city blurring at the upper end. In the latter case, this is due to changes in the definition of what constitutes a city in New Zealand, leading to several of New Zealand's larger towns (e.g., Timaru) being almost universally referred to as cities. Similarly, with changes in local body boundaries during the 1990s several towns became part of cities and as such are technically suburbs though almost universally referred to mas towns (I've been witness to various edit wars on articles such as Mosgiel and Green Island, New Zealand on this exact point. For this reason the category'suse is ambiguous and problematic, which is why the wider Category:Cities, towns and communities in New Zealand is the one actually in use. I suggest merger with the latter. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge. This category is almost empty. --Bduke (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge, per nom. -- Avenue (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Beer and breweries in Alabama to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Alabama

Category:Beer and breweries in Alaska to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Alaska

Category:Beer and breweries in Arizona to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Arizona

Category:Beer and breweries in Arkansas to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Arkansas

Category:Beer and breweries in California to Category:Beer brewing companies based in California

Category:Beer and breweries in Colorado to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Colorado

Category:Beer and breweries in Delaware to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Delaware

Category:Beer and breweries in Washington, D.C. to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Washington, D.C.

Category:Beer and breweries in Illinois to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Illinois

Category:Beer and breweries in Indiana to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Indiana

Category:Beer and breweries in Iowa to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Iowa

Category:Beer and breweries in Maine to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Maine

Category:Beer and breweries in Maryland to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Maryland

Category:Beer and breweries in Massachusetts to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Massachusetts

Category:Beer and breweries in Minnesota to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Minnesota

Category:Beer and breweries in Montana to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Montana

Category:Beer and breweries in Nebraska to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Nebraska

Category:Beer and breweries in Nevada to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Nevada

Category:Beer and breweries in New Hampshire to Category:Beer brewing companies based in New Hampshire

Category:Beer and breweries in New Jersey to Category:Beer brewing companies based in New Jersey

Category:Beer and breweries in New York to Category:Beer brewing companies based in New York

Category:Beer and breweries in North Carolina to Category:Beer brewing companies based in North Carolina

Category:Beer and breweries in Ohio to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Ohio

Category:Beer and breweries in Oregon to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Oregon

Category:Beer and breweries in Pennsylvania to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Pennsylvania

Category:Brewing companies (beer) based in Pennsylvania to Category:Beer brewing companies) based in Pennsylvania

Category:Beer and breweries in Rhode Island to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Rhode Island

Category:Beer and breweries in South Carolina to Category:Beer brewing companies based in South Carolina

Category:Beer and breweries in Tennessee to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Tennessee

Category:Beer and breweries in Texas to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Texas

Category:Beer and breweries in Vermont to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Vermont

Category:Beer and breweries in Virginia to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Virginia

Category:Beer and breweries in Washington to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Washington

Category:Beer and breweries in Wisconsin to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Wisconsin

Category:Beer and breweries in Wyoming to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Wyoming

Category:Beer and breweries in Pittsburgh to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Category:Brewing companies (beer) based in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Georgia (U.S. state)

Category:Brewing companies (beer) based in Louisiana to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Louisiana

Category:Brewing companies (beer) based in Missouri to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Missouri

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was approved by a previous discussion. In trying to do the changes, one user has been undoing the changes citing a previous discussion. So I'm bring this back here again. The notice for the previous discussion was posted on the the beer project page. This proposal is to rename the categories to companies since that is what they mostly contain as was approved by the previous CfD. The last was for a split so simply doing the rename will be easier with minimal cleanup. Based on the previous CfD, any beers in the affected categories will be manually moved to Category:American beer brands either before or after the rename. Only 2 beers are included in the above categories and they are also in Category:American beer brands. In addition, most of the category introductions already say that the category is for breweries. Based on some additional discussions, if the consensus is to rename all of these to Category:Brewing companies based in Foo I will not object. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename as proposed for the good reasons stated. This was already agreed to but never completed in fact. Hmains (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• can we add renaming Category:Beer and breweries in Pittsburgh to Category:Breweries based in Pittsburgh. All articles in the Pittsburgh category are breweries. Hmains (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added this with the target as Brewing companies based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. That follows the form of the other nominations since they are companies and adds the state to match the great grand parent category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't like having "beer" in brackets; it's not natural. What's wrong with "Beer brewing companies based in", "Beer breweries based in" or "Breweries based in"? --kingboyk (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not object to the first two suggestions if that is where consensus moves to. As to the third, it is ambiguous. Breweries is used to describe both companies and buildings. There are notable buildings that currently don't have articles. When they get written, they will need to be placed in categories that are not ambiguous in the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, the second is probably ambiguous too then. So "Beer brewing companies based in" would be ok? --kingboyk (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Now we just need to have a consensus between Category:Beer brewing companies based in foo or the nomination as proposed. Any other comments from others? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Beer brewing companies..." is definitely preferable. - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with JasonAQuest and with Vegaswikian's latest formulation: Category:Beer brewing companies based in foo Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have updated the nomination and also tagged and included the three categories that were already in the first proposed format. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose the following renames:

• Category:Liberty Flames men's basketball coaches to Category:Liberty Flames basketball coaches
• Category:Liberty Flames men's basketball players to Category:Liberty Flames basketball players
• Category:Liberty Flames women's basketball coaches to Category:Liberty Lady Flames basketball coaches
• Category:Liberty Flames women's basketball players to Category:Liberty Lady Flames basketball players

Nominator's rationale: Liberty University consistently uses "Flames" solely for men's teams and athletes, and "Lady Flames" for women. See the school's official athletics site, www.libertyflames.com. The existing Category:Liberty Flames basketball should become a men-only category. If the rename goes through, I'll take care of that, and create Category:Liberty Lady Flames basketball for all the women's content and create a new parent category at Category:Liberty University basketball. — Dale Arnett (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all and the categorised articles - I have grave doubts as to whether a university basketball team is notable. Student societies are regularly deleted, so why not student sport? However, if retained at all merge all into Category:Liberty University basketball. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 09:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is all part of a well-established category structure. WikiProject College Basketball has set up dozens of categories for college basketball players and coaches as follows:
    • Category:College basketball players
      • Category:College men's basketball players
      • Category:College women's basketball players
    • Category:College basketball coaches
      • Category:College men's basketball coaches
      • Category:College women's basketball coaches
  • (continuing comment) These categories may be small, with limited potential for growth (as Liberty is a "low-major" basketball program), but IMHO, they need to stay as part of the established structure. — Dale Arnett (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: Peter, I noticed you live in England. You may not understand how important university sport is in the States. See Sports in the United States, college football, and college basketball for an idea of how important it is in American culture. Also, you might want to take a look at the attendance figures for university sport in the U.S. and compare them with figures for professional leagues around the world. It might enlighten you a little.  :) — Dale Arnett (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do live in the UK. However if University sport is encyclopaedic, why do I see frequent AFD nominations for univerity societies dealing with particular subjects and of longstanding existence? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I have some sympathy for Peterkingiron's position, the main reason we have such leniency on who gets articles in the college sports arena here is because of the intense popularity of it and the Wikiproject for it. If we had a Wikiproject for college pranks or college streakers and it was quite popular, you'd have lots of those as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 17:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Klingon characters to Category:Klingons

Suggest merging Category:Bajoran characters to Category:Bajorans

Suggest merging Category:Betazoid characters to Category:Betazoids

Suggest merging Category:Cardassian characters to Category:Cardassians

Suggest merging Category:Ferengi characters to Category:Ferengi

Suggest merging Category:Vulcan characters to Category:Vulcans

Nominator's rationale:

Proposed for consistency with CFD Dec 28 on Romulan characters. WP:FICT was held to override the usefulness of these categories for navigation.

If these mergers are approved then do not upmerge the articles into Category: Star Trek characters, nor category:Star Trek aliens, as those would be unnecessary head categories. Instead, add the six merge targets (the alien species categories) into category:Star Trek aliens or category:Star Trek alien characters if renamed as proposed below.

My personal preference would be to reject these proposals and restore Category:Romulan characters. There was a useful distinction between Category:Star Trek characters and Category:Star Trek races. The categories on each race/species also hold articles about culture, politics etc, but that distinction has currently been discarded in the case of Category:Romulans.

Even if my views do not prevail, the end result should be consistent. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If there is no interest in this, then close this CFM with no action, and I'll take Category:Romulan characters to Deletion Review. Is that what I should have done in the first place? With 3:1 in favour of deletion last week, I assumed time was up for all these character categories. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom, per precedent, and for consistency with our policies including WP:FICT, and per my comments on the Romulan one before. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Star Trek aliens to Category:Star Trek alien characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Clarify difference between this category and Category:Star Trek races which is for species.

If the mergers above go through, then the merged categories should become sub-cats of this one, but not of its head cat category:Star Trek characters. Fayenatic (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedy deleted (WP:CSD#U1) by User:Vegaswikian. –Pomte 06:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunt law enforcement agencies of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: mis-spelt, so delete Ninetyone (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article Category:Convention centres in India to article Convention centres in India

Nominator's rationale: This is not a category, but instead an oddly formatted list, and should be moved to article space if kept. It may not be worth keeping at all. I don't think it is spam, but it certainly needs a lot of cleanup. LeSnail (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is one article in the category, so the category should remain. It seems a legit article and more are likely to be added. The rest is however a complete mess. It could be moved to an article, but unless it is cleaned up, it is likely to be speedy deleted. --Bduke (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - the sole article in the category doesn't identify the building in question as a "convention centre" (and as a side note is rather spammy, anyone know whether the building is actually notable?). The article in category space needs to be removed. If it gets articlized and speedy deleted, so be it. Otto4711 (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I copied the article material to a new article Convention centres in India with a view to converting this to a proper category. While I was trying to wikify it, I had an edit conflict as interfering editors applied "copy-vio" and "prod" to it. I have applied "hang on", asking that the deletion of the article should await the outcome of this CFD discussion. The category is a legitimate one, but the article is rather more like a directory (or marketing brochure) than an encyclopaedic article. I suspect that it could be improved. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete content - Sorry Peter but I went ahead and deleted Convention centres in India under speedy criteria G11, as it was a list of business contact details. Please consider recreating, depending on the results of this CFD. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under G11. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was e. Kbdank71 17:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German-Irish Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Triple intersection of nationality and ethnic origin. I'm not even terribly sure what a "German-Irish American" is. Does it mean you are American descended from Irish people of German descent? Or the other way around? Either way, this is absurd. LeSnail (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this editor has made several of this type of category, where the entries often do not even verify belonging to the alleged category. Several of his categories have already been deleted as have many of his articles and uploaded images too. There are 2 other nominations of this editors created categories on this CfD alone. ww2censor (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you should probably also review all of these category creations by this editor. ww2censor (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessary ethnic/race category but no doubt the retention of some of these categories leads others to create more of them when we should delete the lot of them, but alas that's a one-by-one chore. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cherokee-Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Why do we want to break up Cherokee people by nationality? The vast majority of them live in the United States anyway. We already have Category:People of Cherokee descent. LeSnail (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this editor has made several of this type of category, where the entries often do not even verify belonging to the alleged category. Several of his categories have already been deleted as have many of his articles and uploaded images too. ww2censor (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary ethnic/race category but no doubt the retention of some of these categories leads others to create more of them when we should delete the lot of them, but alas that's a one-by-one chore. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Congolese songwriters to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo songwriters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Congolese" is ambiguous. Category is a sub of Democratic Republic of Congo categories and only article is about a DRC songwriter. Snocrates 11:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Songwriters of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for consistency with parents Category:Musicians of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Category:Writers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Democratic Republic of the Congo is not used as an adjective in the way that, say, New Zealand is. LeSnail (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that clear-cut, at least as it stands now. See Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo writers, Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo short story writers, Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo politicians, and others at Category:People of the Democratic Republic of the Congo by occupation. (Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo musicians also exists as a parallel empty category right now.) In fact, right now there are more that use "DRC Foo" than "Foo of the DRC". Whether that's good or not is another issue, but it's not like consistency already exists on this matter. Snocrates 03:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have left a note at Talk:Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo asking for advice. I have no opinion on the matter, except that I would like to see consistency of some sort. LeSnail (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per recent precedent of Bosnia and Herzegovina on December 31. (Note: I closed that one.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename before the category gets a mixture of members from more than one state using the name Congo. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 17:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct American political movements

Nominator's rationale: clearly npov --Gary123 (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep clearly npov concept is misunderstood. These are political organiations and they no longer exist (defunct). Facts support the category as is. Hmains (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be less opposed to this article if ALL pages on groups currently active had the defunct tag remove. When I came across this, the Cpusa and JDL were both listed along with many other active groups. --Gary123 (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If something is wrong with the categorization of specific articles, then fix the articles; wrong categorization is no reason to delete a category. Hmains (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Hmains is correct. I've added some info & a related category link, and removed a few improperly categorized articles. Cgingold (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2008 (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 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: Speedy delete, WP:CSD#C1. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neo-Pagan texts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a test category, never actually populated. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If empty for more than 4 days, it can be speedied. --Lquilter (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puerto Rican anime and manga characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - empty except for a redirect. Is a category empty except for redirects eligible for speedy? Otto4711 (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and in answer to his question: I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't criticize another for doing so. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Welsh descent in Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Wales is located in Great Britain. This category doesn't make sense. faithless (^speak) 03:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename / Split - Clearly doesn't refer to the Welsh in Wales, but in other parts of the UK. People of "Welsh descent in X "(England) / (Scotland) / (N. Ireland) and group them all together under "People of Welsh descent in the United Kindom". Kevlar67 (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But why would you do that? The United Kingdom (the island of Great Britain in particular) is where one would expect to find people of Welsh descent. This is akin to having categories for "People of Flemish descent in Belgium" or "People of Métis descent in Canada." faithless (^speak) 10:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; Wales is in Great Britain - what real use is this category? I don't see it - the same editor has started several other oddly composed categories, some of which have already been deleted. ww2censor (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everyone in Wales would belong in this category. LeSnail (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overcategorisation. We all live in the same island and the same country. I'm in England, only 100 miles from London yet closer to the Welsh border than I am to London! --kingboyk (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, over-cat. --Soman (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the category is too broad to be useful. Many English people have some Welsh blood, but it is rarely a particularly defining characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary ethnic/race category but no doubt the retention of some of these categories leads others to create more of them when we should delete the lot of them, but alas that's a one-by-one chore. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2008 (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 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was relisted on jan 10. Kbdank71 17:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Jamaican-American singers to Category:Jamaican American musicians

Suggest merging Category:Jamaican-American singer-songwriters to Category:Jamaican American musicians

Suggest merging Category:Jamaican-American rappers to Category:Jamaican American musicians

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT by ethnicity. There are barely three pages in each of these three categories. Funk Junkie (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all unnecessary ethnic/race category but no doubt the retention of some of these categories leads others to create more of them when we should delete the lot of them, but alas that's a one-by-one chore. Here, too, there is an intersection between the race/ethnicity and an occupation without any indication that Jamaican American musicians perform differently than non-Jamaican Americans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.