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 under G7 one author who requested deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Neighborhoods in Tehran to Category:Neighbourhoods in Tehran

Propose merging Category:Neighborhoods in Iran to Category:Neighbourhoods in Iran

Nominator's rationale: Empty categories, different spelling, sorry I didn't check well before creating them, my bad. Erebedhel - Talk 23:02, 29 March 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) 00:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brazillian jazz singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary redirect; there are no other "Brazillian" category redirects. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Don't seem to me like a particularly useful redirect, but nor does it seem to be doing any harm. So I don't care whether it stays or goes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. as its nothing but a rather uncommon typo. Should go to speedy list. Mayumashu (talk) 16:57, 30 March 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:Women philosophers, without prejudice against recreating if the number of articles about female Indian philosophers increases significantly. The sole entry is already in Category:Indian philosophers. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Indian women philosophers to Category:Women philosophers

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry and no other corresponding nationality/women/philosophers trisection categories other than Category:Ancient Greek women philosophers (which is reasonably populated.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have no objection as category originator. It was created as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian women. As User:Pascal.Tesson noted in the closing of the related (but retained) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian women (2nd nomination), it was part of "a growing ping-pong phenomenon between CfD closing as delete and listify and AfDs closing as delete and categorize" Don't know if the meta-conversation he predicted there ever happened, but it was pretty much the end of my personal part in the ping-pong game. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:26, 29 March 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. Jafeluv (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles for Deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

'Nominator's rationale: Delete'. Redirect Judging by the edit here, a new user was trying to set up some kind of alternative AfD. Unless somebody else can find a use for the category, appears to be surplus to requirements . Richhoncho (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-process category masquerading as a Wikipedia process. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not quite sure what the creator was trying to do, but the result is an entirely useless category.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The proper category's at Category:Articles for deletion. Creator was apparently trying to delete his user subpage. —Korath (Talk) 05:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Category:Articles for deletion as being the actual cat. The extra capital letter in the "wrong" name might actually come in handy (AfD, anyone?) --Jubilee♫clipman 14:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect per Jubilee. Probably a good faith but misguided creation. Orderinchaos 22:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, As nominator here I would be happy with a soft redirect and have changed above accordingly --Richhoncho (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Since Category:Articles for deletion is populated automatically by substitution of ((afd)), there is no need to retain a category redirect to direct a bot to recategorize improperly-categorized pages. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as noted by Black Falcon, there's no reason to expect that people will attempt to put articles or other pages into this category. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 6 April 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 April 6#Category:Australian rugby league teams. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging of Category:Australian rugby league clubs and Category: Australian rugby league teams

Nominator's rationale: These two overlapping categories should be merged into one category. I was amazed to find that both existed. Possible new name could be Category: Rugby league teams in Australia although I am open to other suggestions. Djln--Djln (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Australian rugby league clubs or rename to Category:Rugby league clubs in Australia as 'club' the preferred term within the sport Mayumashu (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would be careful with a merge here. A team does not always equal a club. Indeed, some teams are most definitely not clubs. The sub-cat Category:Rugby league representative teams in Australia includes rugby league teams that are not clubs, but rather, representative selections. Perhaps better category naming can fix the issue? The whole category tree is a bit of a mess and this could be an opportunity to clean it up. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Similar categories for other countries use team rather then club. See Category: Rugby league teams. Regards to above cats, there does not see to be any criteria to distinguish between either. In fact I have seen some articles in both. Djln--Djln (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a clear criteria to separate the two concepts, it just hasn'r been used properly in these categories. A club is just that, a club: such as South Sydney Rabbitohs etc. It is a organisation dedicated to putting sporting teams on the park, contracts its own players etc. A team on the other hand does not necessarily have to be a club. New South Wales rugby league team is not a club, it is a representative selection of players from various clubs. To use a football example, Manchester United FC is a club that has a range of teams, including obviously their main team; the England national football team is not a club, but is simply a team. Perhaps football could be used as an example to help tidy the RL cats. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't need an explanation on difference between clubs and teams but whoever filled these cats might. If you check the teams and clubs listed you will see that they have just been randomly added without follwing any kind of criteria. There is no need for both cats. One should go and I suggest it should be the clubs as the teams one can be more inclusive and this is inline with other rugby league cats for other countries. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:50, 31 March 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 as nominated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Staveley to Category:People from Staveley, Derbyshire

Propose renaming Category:People from Eckington to Category:People from Eckington, Derbyshire

Nominator's rationale: (1) Article is Staveley, Derbyshire; Staveley is a disamb page. (2) Article is Eckington, Derbyshire; Eckington is a disamb page. Occuli (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match main articles. These are the places most likely to be referred to. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 30 March 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 as nominated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cities in Romania to Category:Towns in Romania, and Category:Municipalities of Romania to Category:Cities in Romania.

Nominator's rationale: What are currently called "municipalities" are not that, they are large towns (reasonably referred to as cities). What are currently called "cities" are just towns. See municipiu and List of towns in Romania. Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - have checked myself and the nominator is correct. This isn't so much a rename as fixing misclassifications - the article leads themselves are correct. Orderinchaos 22:16, 30 March 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 Category:Singers by gender to Category:Singers, and merge all Fooian singers by gender to Fooian singers. gidonb is correct that merging the categories in this manner will lengthen the path from Category:People by gender to individual Fooian female/male singers categories; however, consensus is that the benefits of merging (i.e., removing these intermediate container categories) outweigh the disadvantages.

I considered this discussion and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 27#Singers by gender and nationality together since the issues being considered and the arguments are the same in both discussions. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

• Category:Singers by gender to Category:Singers

Propose merging

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category can only ever contain two sub-categories, and can easily be upmerged without creating category clutter. (See also similar group nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 27#Singers_by_gender_and_nationality, from which this category was omitted since it was not properly parented). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination was initially for only Category:Cuban singers by gender, but I have added another 29 categories which Occuli found. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I'm afraid I've found quite a few more, now in Category:Singers by gender. And Category:Singers by gender itself (which will be left with 2 subcats) should be upmerged to Category:Singers. Occuli (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Good work. I will add the rest to this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I meant merge, but it is a shame that they can't all be diffused to Category:Singers by voice type, now that would be encyclopedic. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upmerge as nom. This is an unnecessary level of categorisation. Male and female are different, but there is no reason why Fooian singers should not have direct subcategories Male Fooian singers and Female Fooian singers. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - how many genders are there?!? Um... I mean Merge per nom's eloquent explanation --Jubilee♫clipman 14:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Obviously, as I nominated the other categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. This comes across as having a well-occupied 20 floor building where the 13th floor is empty and coming over with a crane and a steal ball to knock out the empty floor out, while explaining that you have already resolved the problem of the water supply. Singer by gender categories are important, and cross-sectioning it with nationality is nontrivial. Everyone in this somewhat scattered discussion seems to agree on that much. (If anyone here is unaware of the real differences between female and (mature) male voices, I'd be happy to explain.) Singer by gender categories, however, are not only subcategories of singers, but also of Category:People by gender. People by gender enables one to find all Wikipedia categories that are split by gender and is an important navigation tool for readers and Wikipedians alike. The suggested deletions would disconnect important categories from each other and significantly decrease the navigability of Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder whether Gidonb has misunderstood what is being proposed. These upmergers will not lead to a single article being removed from an existing category, nor for the removal or renaming of any Category:Fooian male singers or Category:Fooian female singers.

  Anyone looking for female singers can still find them in Category:Female singers, and any one looking for male singers can still find them in Category:Male singers. Category:People by gender can still be used to find categories that are split by gender, by looking in the sub-categories Category:Men by occupation and Category:Women by occupation ... and most occupations which have a gendered sub-category have only one gendered sub-category, because per WP:CATGRS a "female x" category does not need to be balanced by a "male x" category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

  I wonder whether BrownHairedGirl has misunderstood the implications of the proposal. The process of removing the Singer by gender categories will remove this category from People by gender and create a disconnect in the categorization system. Singers by gender are notable both for male and female voices and therefor the reference to WP:CATGRS is irrelevant in this case. gidonb (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As above, it will not create a disconnect. Category:People by gender → Category:Men → Category:Men by occupation → Category:Male singers ... and same for female singers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, when both genders are included in Wikipedia, an X by gender category should by accessible from People by gender. It makes our encyclopedia easily navigable for visitors and clarifies for Wikipedians which articles should be categorized by genderS. gidonb (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is categorisation by gender necessary? At all, I mean. Could just as well cat by colour, sexuality or religious belief --Jubilee♫clipman 14:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answering self: just spotted WP:CATGRS in above, which explains --Jubilee♫clipman 14:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:People by gender contains the categories Category:Religious leaders by gender and Category:Fictional characters by gender which appear be exactly analogous to Category:Singers by gender. Should these also be dealt with in like manner at some point? Do Category:Female authors who wrote under male or gender-neutral pseudonyms and Category:Male authors who wrote under female or gender-neutral pseudonyms also need to be reassessed? Just trying to get to grips with the full implications of this and not suggesting that these should be added to the present nom. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 15:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imho, the latter categories should be listified as such or split into two, if kept as categories. I agree that this is sidetracking. It is important that we allow navigation throughout the category system by different features and if there happen to be only two genders (versus more religions, ethnicities etc.), so be it. The feature itself must be notable (no argument above) and if it is, it should be kept or made navigable. gidonb (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This looks like a halfbaked proposal, that has not been been evaluated in the light of all factors, until late in the discussion. With all respect to the keenness to eliminate categories, please bare in mind that some of them are absolutely necessary to keep the articles navigable, consistent, and organized and that the category system is one of the most precious Wikipedian tools for naviagbility, organization and consistency. Also in the future: Please take a good look at the uses of a category, before going per nom! gidonb (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things look brighter for the navagibility in the related discussion, where there is clearly no consensus to merge. gidonb (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So far—5 in favour of merging; 1 opposed; 1 no vote. This makes "clearly no consensus to merge"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good Ol’factory, we are probably looking at different discussions. gidonb (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. I'm not convinced that eliminating these mid-level containers will cause any sort of problem to the overall navigational purpose of the categories. I'm not sure we even need to divide singers by gender, but that's another story. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 6 April 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: no consensus. There was consensus that the current title is ambiguous and needs to be changed but no clear preference for a single option.

Of the ten options that were presented, Category:Models (occupation) was the only one which resolves the ambiguity in the current title, was supported by more than one participant, and to which no one directly objected, but even it was the first preference (in terms of ranked preferences, not chronologically) of only one editor (taking the most recent expression of a single preference as the first preference).

In the table below, I have listed the ten options and tried to summarize the arguments offered for and against them, as well as added some technical notes and (in one instance) my personal opinion:

An alternate suggestion (see comments by choster, Brunnian, and Jubileeclipman) was to split the category tree by type of modeling. There was no consensus to implement this idea, but it was not clearly rejected either.

I encourage a follow-up discussion that builds on this one to explore in more depth the suggestions made here, since it is clear that the current title is undesirable. (P.S. In response to Carlaude's comment of 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC), made in reply to Brunnian, regarding non-professional artists' models: I think Julie Bell is an example.) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Models to Category:Models (occupation), Category:Professional models, or Category:Fashion models

Nominator's rationale: The category scheme encompassing models, conceptual models, scientific models etcetera would benefit greatly by being able to reside under this name. Please support this effort to organize some otherwise difficult to classify articles. Greg Bard 03:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not disputing the vagueness of the current name, but it would be good to achieve consistency of naming (a) upward with the article relating to the category at Model (person) and (b) downward with the 9 subcategory names - should these also be changed? AllyD (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree with the objective, but "Fashion models" is not a broad enough term, because the category tree is broader than just fashion models. Category:Models→Category:Models by type of modeling→Category:Adult models/Category:Artists' models/Category:Beauty pageant contestants/etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I too agree that Category:Models will not do: nearly all of Model is about things rather than people. However Category:Models (person) seems inelegant. Occuli (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Yes, but there is a delicious irony in something inelegant associated with professional display of the body. I've never seen one that didn't look to be suffering from some deformity!--Brunnian (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is the umbrella concept of "Model (person)" really a useful layer? To my mind, it would be like lumping talent managers, corporate executives, and project managers in Category:Managers.- choster (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "Model (person)" seems to me to be a better grouping than that. Artists models, fashion models, and porn models are all people who make their living from having people look at their bodies, rather than what they say, do, or think. Basically, they do similar things, just for different markets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - fashion models are technically paid to model the clothes so people look at those rather than the model. Artists' models are paid (or not as the case may be) to inspire artistic creation that other people then look at, the model being part of the art and therefore secondary to it. These are all entirely distinct forms of modelling. (Porn models, obviously, are paid for people to drool (or whatever...) over their bodies...) --Jubilee♫clipman 15:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to

• Category:Professional models, (what nonprofessional model would be notible for modeling?)
• Category:Individual models,
• Category:Human models,
• Category:Individual human models,
• Category:Models (person),
• Category:Models (people), or
• Keep.

For example, Artists' models and Fetish models are not really "Fashion models". ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would support renaming to "professional models" as a more general name. I would also support consistency upward and downward. Greg Bard 00:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The Category:Professional models option runs the risk of repeating the problem which the change is seeking to address, in that there are professions using the idea of models; see for example the SOA usage at Service-oriented modeling. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't really follow. Are you suggesting that Service-oriented architecture itself can be called a "professional model"-- and that that category name would be confusing to anyone who does service-oriented modeling? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but I am not quite sure how. Oppose the present nom, becasue it does not cover artists' models, etc. Models (profession) might be possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Models (profession) seems more about the whole profession (and not the people) or articles like Miss Hollywood. I would rather support Category:Individual models (profession). ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree some sort of splitting is appropriate. (We already have Mathematical Modeling and Scale Modeling (sic) ) I'd support Fashion Models and Artists' Models as separate entities. I know nothing and care less about Fetish Models, who I would suspect are well able to take care of themselves. Don't forget that in french - and France dominates the fashion business - they are known as mannequin, and are thus indistinguishable from the lumps of wood which serve the same purpose. --Brunnian (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  While Artists' models are professional in that they are paid-- I see that there could be a notible artists' model who was not paid because s/he was married to (or a lover of) the artist. But this is conjector ATM. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Split - this is the only truly practical solution, IMO. Fashion models, adult models, beauty pagent models, game show models and artists' models are all quite distinct entities. However, I do empathise with the eventual splitter as they will have to deal with all those subcats to make the split make sense, I suspect... --Jubilee♫clipman 14:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  While there is already spilting of individual human models into categories by the type of modeling, and we should keep this, an overall category of individual human models allows for sub-categories also by gender, nationality, etc. What use it there to removing the whole top category? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this oversimplified nom, but some sort of rearrangement would be good. Category:Artists' models and the other members of Category:Models by type of modeling need dealing with. Perhaps just keep the current category & set up "Fashion models" as a sub, moving most of the contents there. Same with Category:Modeling. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I will support a move to Category:Models (occupation) consistent with "by occupation" categories.Greg Bard 20:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Human models. While I don't really like the name, it seems to be a generic parent that allows for both individuals and groups of models. I think that all of the other options have baggage in that they presuppose certain other conditions for inclusion and can only function as subcategories. Category:Models (people) on the surface seems like a good choice, but the main article there only covers one branch of models. If consensus shifts to Category:Models (occupation), I could support that. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 6 April 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chennai Technical fest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category for an apparently non-notable college event (no hits on Google News or Google Scholar) which does not even have a head article, let alone other articles with which to populate the category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – very confusing, as is its only article Samhita Madras Institute of Technology which should probably be afd'd. Occuli (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Samhita Madras Institute of Technology needs to be merged to Madras Institute of Technology. This will leave the category empty. In any event, this is unlikely ever to be better populated. In fact when I looked there was nothing in the category, apart from a stub article sittign in category-space. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:48, 30 March 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louis-François Baron Lejeune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it links nothing together (and also lacks a comma, cf Louis-François, Baron Lejeune). There is an image in the category, but this has no overt connection with the good Baron, and the image in his article also has no obvious connection with him. He has works but none yet has an article; 'Cossack' merely redirects to the Cossacks. Occuli (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- essentailly nothing but a main article at present. Deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if it can be populated adequately. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree, no prejudice to re-creation if it can be populated adequately and in accordance with the principles for eponymous categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even without the typo, this category would hardly serve any purpose. gidonb (talk) 19:42, 2 April 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black Library authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This a writers-by-publisher category, and I have found no equivalent other than for newspapers. A list already exists at List of Black Library novels. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete rather meaningless category. gidonb (talk) 19:39, 2 April 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.