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: rename. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to Category:Universities and colleges accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

Nominator's rationale: The category name is currently unclear, this rename would clarify it. TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 20:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I think it's important to keep the name that an organization has given itself. Beside, when you link to the category, it provides the extended explantion that the nominator requests. Should we also change the ((National Collegiate Athletic Association)) to "a semi- voluntary association of 1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations and individuals that organizes the athletic programs of many colleges and universities in the United States and Canada" si that people will now what it stands for? I think not. Again, Keep.Ccson (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What does a template have to do with a category? --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 16:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question -- Are the colleges etc accredited by the Association also "members" of it? If so, the category might be SACS members. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Although the organization is technically called an association, it is actually an accrediting body. Schools accredited are not members of the association per se. See regional accreditation. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 16:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Universities and colleges accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. After rename, recreate and make it the parent of Category:Universities and colleges accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and Category:Schools accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. A college and university category can not be the parent categroy for high schools. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2010 (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: Double upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:Fossil derived gases to Category:Fossil fuels and Category:Fuel gas

Nominator's rationale: This one from User:Nopetro (in one of his former sockpuppet identities) is one that I'm less sure about. But it seems to me to be a small and arbitrary sub-set of Fossil fuels, based on the fact that at normally occurring temperatures and pressures, these fuels are gases. Does this not open the door to Category:Fossil derived liquids? Also, I'm not at all sure "fossil derived" is the most accurate term. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• merge. "Fossil derived" includes all petrochemical products, from methane to very sophisticated and expensive synthetic stuff. East of Borschov (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2010 (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: rename. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:College of William and Mary to Category:The College of William & Mary

Nominator's rationale: this is closer to this university's official name which is 'The College of William & Mary in Virginia', and the article page is named this - The College of William & Mary. (I ll later list subcategories for this category as speedy renames, should this nomination pass.) Mayumashu (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2010 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nominating per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 23, which closed as relist. Procedural nomination only, I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The precedent is not to have categories listing members of sub-national level halls of fame. Mayumashu (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I see no indication from the parent article that this is an especially significant institution, nor any indication that it is categorically significant (i.e., defining) to the inductees, who are apparently eligible for inclusion on the basis of any connection to the state, not necessarily for having had a sports career in Alabama (cf. Jesse Owens). As I noted in the deletion review, anyone who wants to support the existence of this category would be better off first expanding and properly sourcing the article (which currently lacks any truly neutral third-party sources), particularly with content regarding how inclusion this state sports hall of fame is regarded generally. If the article barely stands alone as a notable topic, it certainly can't support a category. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think a precedent has really been established. There are many sub-national halls of fame categories: this category alone lists 17 of them: Category:State halls of fame in the United States. (There are more that are not in that category, but that's a good sampling.) The previous category was deleted based on the WP:OCAT#AWARD guideline, but I think halls of fame are not truly individual awards; a hall of fame category seems more of a lifetime honor and therefore an association of people. If we want to discuss whether all sub-national hall of fame categories should be deleted, let's have that discussion and invite people who have created and/or worked with those categories to discuss. We are likely to get more discussion that way. I don't think it's valid to delete this category based on an inconsistently-applied precedent. --Esprqii (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:State halls of fame in the United States gives a selection of articles, not categories. Grace Abbott is on the list for Nebraska but there is no category. Occuli (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, I thought I found the mother lode and got excited. Thanks for the correction. But to name a few: Category:Aviation Hall of Fame of New Jersey inductees, Category:Ohio State Varsity O Hall of Fame, Category:Texas Sports Hall of Fame, Category:Oklahoma Music Hall of Fame inductees. Still think it might be worthwhile listing this more broadly than here to establish a precedent.--Esprqii (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I too think that this is not likely to be defining ... an analogy might be an honorary degree. I expect Jesse Owens would be in dozens of such halls. Occuli (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Every time these have been discussed, they have resulted in deletion. This doesn't imply that every single one has been discussed thus far, so some may exist. Per the guidelines of OC#AWARDS, this should be deleted unless it is a particularly significant induction/award, similar in status to the Academy Awards or Nobel Prizes. In my opinion it is not. This is because, as Occuli says, it is very unlikely to be defining for the inductees. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I've been trying to say, perhaps inaptly, is that (1) in my opinion, the WP:OCAT#AWARD guideline (which I, too, cited) shouldn't apply to hall of fame categories; and that (2) a more sweeping guideline about minor halls of fame in general, such as sub-country specific ones, should be discussed to draw in a possibly wider audience who may not see this one. Perhaps this is not the place to make such a suggestion of widening the scope, but it seems like we could avoid these case-by-case discussions if there were a wider discussion and/or better guideline. Since people keep making the categories, I don't think I'm the only one who doesn't think it could be made clearer. --Esprqii (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're responding to others' comments that are largely relying on past deletion discussions, but I presented above a rationale for deletion that doesn't rest upon precedent, which I consider beside the point in a sense. Even if state sports halls of fame categories had never been discussed before, no one has made any showing that this particular hall of fame merits a category, let alone that all halls of fame merit categories, particularly if you're trying to lump in non-sports halls of fame for some reason. I simply don't see any reason to think that all state halls of fame are necessarily created equal; even limited to sports, the Texas Sports Hall of Fame, for example, seems of a different character than the Alabama one, both in its origin and in its induction criteria. It's possible that some merit categories; it's possible that none merit categories. postdlf (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2010 (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: keep. Courcelles (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorism in Vietnam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A recently created category with no parent article and no reliable sources that argue these were acts of terrorism. The Viet Cong, for instance, were a guerrilla group and are not considered terrorists. This whole thing smacks of POV-pushing. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as part of a series (Terrorism by country). If an article does not belong, then that article should be removed from the category and, if necessary, its inclusion should be discussed on the article's talk page. If the category becomes empty because of that, then it can be tagged with ((db-empty)) and speedily deleted. For what it's worth, I agree that the Viet Cong are more accurately identified as a "guerrilla organization", though admittedly they did carry out acts of terrorism. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The incident 1965 Saigon bombing is described as being terrorism in the Evening Standard article cited. Viet Cong should be removed from the category and that would leave the category with a single article. But still more than nothing so worthy of being kept. Another article that would fit the category is Phoenix Program. Munci (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2010 (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: rename. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bridges over the Saint John River (New Brunswick) to Category:Bridges over the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Name of category should reflect that some of the bridges in this category are bi-national. As the river is disambiguated (Bay of Fundy), and the parent category is disambiguated (Bay of Fundy), it seems logical and appropriate to disambiguate this subcategory (Bay of Fundy) as well. Gjs238 (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) and Category:Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) (recently renamed at cfd). Occuli (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (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: rename. There was no consensus to delete the category, though more discussion in a subsequent nomination may be useful (especially if one or more category members are deleted). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wanted to Category:Wanted (comics)

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Wanted (comics). Wanted is ambiguous. — ξ^xplicit 04:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support igordebraga ≠ 00:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a small category for a comic book mini-series that is largely populated by articles of questionable notability. There seems little likelihood that the category will expand given that it's been five years since the end of publication. There is a navigational template that links all of the articles. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Questionable notability should be addressed at the article level. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, my deletion argument is not based on the possible notability of the articles. It is based on this category being small with no likelihood of expansion. This is a six-issue limited series that stopped publishing five years ago. It's not like this is a viable comics franchise that's going to continue to generate fodder for new articles. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2010 (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: rename. Courcelles (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Apostle Paul to Category:Paul of Tarsus

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article has been at a variety of names, but some time ago was moved to Paul of Tarsus and has been stable there for a number of months, so it makes sense to match the category name to the article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename the article instead, to match the category name. Note: it isn't a stable name, there's a move request open right now. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The move request for the article was started after this nomination was started, you know. But in any case, the article is not going to move. As I said, it's been at the current name for some time now, and every nomination to move it fails. It looks like this one will fail too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• REname as nom. Having looked at the requested move, it is clear that there is major opposition to the move to "St Paul". HOwever, that discussion should be closed before this one is, and this one should follow its ourcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per unknown user at 76.66.193.224. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 09:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: Pending the outcome of Talk:Paul of Tarsus#Requested Move to Saint Paul. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:00, 10 June 2010 (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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 10#Category:Sugar Hill Records (bluegrass) albums. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sugar Hill Records (bluegrass) albums to Category:Sugar Hill Records albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, add ((for)) to dab. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 04:26, 2 June 2010 (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: rename. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Three kinds of karma to Category:Karma in Hinduism

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The "three kinds of karma" is a concept in Hinduism, but the idea of karma exists outside of Hinduism, so this name needs to be narrowed a bit. At the same time, it's already overly narrow in a different way, being limited to just the "three kinds". I suggest renaming this to Category:Karma in Hinduism, which more clearly sets out what the category is about and doesn't limit it to articles about only the "three kinds". A similarly-named Category:Karma in Jainism already exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - This one seems like a no-brainer. Cgingold (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Useful when browsing Category:Karma. --Pnm (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Makes more sense.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2010 (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: merge to Category:Plug-in hybrid vehicles. Converting Category:Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles from a category redirect into a subcategory of Category:Plug-in hybrid vehicles is up to editors' discretion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Plug-in hybrid vehicles by country to Category:Plug-in hybrid vehicles

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Another category by User:Nopetro that does not seem to serve a useful purpose, at least at this time, as there are no "by country" articles or subcategories herein. Just four articles that can be upmerged to the parent, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose/Suggest another course I think it should be Category:Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and both categories should be merged into it. There are other sorts of plug-in hybrid vehicles, things that use the plug to run the starter motor for instance, which are hybrid CNG/diesel. And the common abbreviation for this type of vehicle is "PHEV" - note the "E". 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Plug-in hybrid vehicles per nom. Another of Nopetro's ill-conceived forays into category space. By all means repurpose the redirect Category:Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as a subcat (which doesn't need a cfd). Occuli (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2010 (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: rename all using "proposed" per 31 May's discussion. Courcelles (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More "future" infrastructure projects, as in this nomination and this one. Another possibility is "proposed." Between these three nominations, that should be most all of the "Future infrastructure" set.—Mike Selinker (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing request: Please close in alignment with the result on this nomination. That nomination seems to have global agreement that "Proposed" is better than "Planned," so I've created a list at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_31/Future_infrastructure with the changes heading to "Proposed (X)" for this and the other two nominations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2010 (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. Please initiate a separate nomination to address Category:Electric vehicle incentives, which was not tagged. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Electric vehicle legislation to Category:Electric vehicle incentives

Nominator's rationale: User:Nopetro created these two categories within a few minutes of each other. They are basically synonymous and surely can be merged. I don't particularly care which way, but I'm suggesting "incentives" be the target cat, as it's a bit broader. These are both sparsely populated cats, with virtually identical contents. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or listify because none of the included articles are specifically about electric vehicles; all rather cover a much broader range of subject matter, with some not even limited to energy policy. It seems rather myopic and arbitrary to categorize a very broad spending act such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, for example, by one very specific area of spending. Even those laws specifically dealing with energy policy cover it much more broadly than just electric cars; take a look at the summary list of just "key provisions" of one such act to see how many categories this level of specificity would produce per article. Further, Directorate-General for Energy (European Commission) is a governmental agency and so doesn't fit in either of them as an "incentive" or as "legislation". Finally, even if articles just about electric vehicle legislation could be found or created, the rather small numbers of articles in much more general categories, such as Category:Renewable-energy law or Category:United States federal energy legislation, illustrate well that more specific categories are, at the very least, unnecessary at this time. It makes a lot more sense to address this through article content than through categories. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be happy with postdlf's alternative suggestion, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2010 (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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 10#Category:Post-rock songs. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Post-rock songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Articles can function more effectively under Category:Band name songs C1k3 (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as part of the scheme of Category:Rock songs by subgenre. Lugnuts (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That was my first reaction, too, except that the parent article states in the lead: "As a musical genre, post-rock is arguably too vague to be useful." If that's so, it gets harder to make the argument that this can be a defining and non-arbitrary grouping. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If there can be Category:Post-rock albums, then it only stands to reason that there could be post-rock songs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:37, 8 June 2010 (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: rename. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Libertarian organisations based in the United States to Category:Libertarian organizations based in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. US category, use US spelling. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. This is a no-brainer. Seems like a good candidate for speedy renaming. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  CFDS states that "Differences between British and American spelling (eg, Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors," it does make an allowance for a possible X of Y change if the category tree uses the proposed spelling, but in this case the parent is the non-US Category:Libertarian organisations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be worth changing this to the more concise Category:United States libertarian organizations? Ucucha 17:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "United States" isn't an adjective. If concision is a concern, drop "based" from the name, as I don't know that the word is really adding anything. postdlf (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Based in is applied to organizations since in the past, without that qualifier, editors were adding the category to every country where the organization operated. That was OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2010 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: precedent set now for deleting these subnational hall of fame membership category pages Mayumashu (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is already nicely listified at Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame. I don't believe we should categorize people by subnational-level hall of fame induction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:36, 2 June 2010 (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.