< March 12	March 14 >

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human skills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I do not see a use for this category. It collects together such topics as Category:Walking, jumping, common sense, and dyslexia. If kept, some criteria for article inclusion need to be added. LeSnail (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - many would question that dyslexia is a skill, most would question whether many or most humans have common sense or exercise it, and all but a few would question whether walking or jumping are uniquely human (my dog does both, may has enough good common sense not to read aloud so I cannot determine whether he has dyslexia or not). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Far too vague, and hence to time-wasting arguments over such questions as whether dyslexia is a human skill, or a handicap, or the absence of a skill, or an oppressive concept invented by literacy-fetishists, or whatever. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Human abilities, remove dyslexia, and add things like language. The idea is that it covers abilities humans have that other animals don't, or that animals do very differently (like walking) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How differently do people have to do it? Does jumping count? Does the existence of leafcutter ants preclude including gardening in this category? What about consciousness? LeSnail (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the category is kept, shouldn't it include death? Humans do the whole dying business very differently to other species: the death usually takes place as a socialised process with family, friends, medical personnel, and lots of technology. We have even redefined death, with concepts like "brain death", and we have a whole industry around the processes of disposing of the body, as well as memorialising the dead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 17 March 2012 (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/Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:2011–12 Elitserien season by team to Category:2011–12 Elitserien season

Propose renaming Category:2010–11 Elitserien season by team to Category:2010–11 Elitserien season

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge the first to the parent Category:2011–12 Elitserien season. Move the second to Category:2010–11 Elitserien season. The extra layer of categorization doesn't bring much because the parent category is very small. What I recommend is the setup used for other important hockey leagues such as the NHL (e.g. Category:2008–09 NHL season) and the KHL (e.g. Category:2011–12 KHL season) but also in basketball (e.g. Category:2011–12 NBA season) or baseball (e.g. Category:2011 Major League Baseball season. Pichpich (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2012 (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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Online dating to Category:Online dating services

Nominator's rationale: This title better reflects the category's contents and brings it in line with the main article online dating service. LeSnail (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Immemorial nobility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Bit of a mess here. I'll just quote from a posting to the category page that was made by User:Dbachmann, as that pretty much sums up the issue: This category was created in August 2010 by User:Nora lives, apparently inspired by an unreferenced piece submitted by Qqtacpn (talk · contribs) in 2009. It is supposed to comprise noble families which have been members of nobility since "time immemorial". No such categorization exists outside of Wikipedia, and the contents of this category was just cobbled together by various Wikipedia users. Use at your own risk. Immemorial nobility has now become a weirdish disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Time immemorial will have different meaning in differnet places. In England, it is legally a date in 1189. I suppose the intention is to identify noble and royal dynasties whose origin is lost in the mists of time. It might be possible to define a meaningful category on that basis, but I will think about that when I see a proposed definition. If kept, it should be renamed "noble dynasties existing since time immemorial" or such like. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The main article is mostly useless, but given what I'm seeing as members I don't think the technical terms are really being appealed to anyway, and indeed it's possible that we're talking about some places where there is no such term. The era division of noble houses is pretty weak, and some of the other era categories would technically overlap with this one. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The central concept seems to be vague and diffuse, and its application to most of the topics involved seems highky questionable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 17 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gurmukhī numerals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Devanagari numerals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Bengali numerals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Persian-Urdu Arabic numerals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Each category contains 10 redirects and nothing else. No hope of significant expansion for any of them. LeSnail (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's response: Please note that this is for categorizing pages which for now are simple redirects to the generic articles discussing and comparing various decimal digits in different scripts.

If you replace those categories, it will be incorrect. Those categoies gives significances to those redirects that otherwise do not indicate anything.

Yes they won't expand immediately, but only probably. I'm not sure becaise there are new traditional digits added to Unicode not just for decimal digits, or because there is also the need to discuss how numerals, not just single digits, are formed in traditional writing systems.

The categories are not just limited to those digits and would expand to any other subjects related to numerals in those writing systems, including names, and things tht will be difficult to recognize distinctly (without confusion) in another category mixing all scripts or all numerals together.

Note that these creations are part of a more general work to classify things. If the categories are deleted, how will you clearly recategorize the items? (whose presence are justified by links using them in various pages, that also help idendifying a character copy-pasted in the search bar or in the address bar, or used in articles where the WRONG digits (from distinct scripts or mixed scripts) are used by error.

The categories help identifying the encoded characters themselves, becore they fo to another article explaining them.

These categories won't hurt, they have meaning, and they are correctly categorized themselves, and avoid having to add long and incorent lists of categories within pages themselves. Why deleting them ? Only because they have 10 items for now and nothing else ? Note also hat those digits are difficult to interpret alone (see the glyph forms): would you guess which digit they represent and the script in which they are used ? IT's simply impossible ! verdy_p (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Categories are intended as navigation aids. A category full of redirects is a useless category. Perhaps articlise, but I expect the relevant articles exist already. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - I understand the creators concerns but we have several articles which adequately cover this material: Gurmukhi alphabet#Numerals, Indian numerals#Devanagari numerals and their Sanskrit names, Bengali alphabet#Digits and numerals, Arabic numerals and Hindu–Arabic numeral system. Green Giant (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The intent is not to create new articles. The redirects are OK, but need classification instead of being just dead-end pages. More, there are specific articles related to digits in each script to be created, independantly of the generic articles that speak about each indivisual digit independantly of the scripts where they are defined.

Navigating from the Gurmukhi category for example we find links for letters, but not for digits. Note that I have qualified these redirects by these categories. This was necessary because otherwise nothing indicate in the link of the redirect for which script they are, and it's difficult to say that just by looking at the character individually. And I did not want to categorize those links in the category for the script itself, where it is a mother category that should list only articles (letters in that script for example are subcategorized in the category for each script, why not digits ?

What does it cost to the server, or to the category system ? Nothing, these categories are very basic and intended to remain very basic. I don't like leaving useful redirects without categories to qualify why they are there, and not indicating why the redirect is relevant. We have categories for Arabo-European digits and numbers, why not for others ? Why would these categories (not just individual "digits") but "numerals" in general, would not contain the other pages given above ? We have done that for Arabic numbers (with sub-categories as well because there are at least 3 variants of them, 2 being used in Arabic, one in Persian/Urdu, and one in most Western languages....

Please leave them, there's no reason to delete them, they don't hurt and don't cause any confusion. And yes there are other Indic numerals to categorize in them (notably when they are used as brand names, or titles in arts, or spelled by their name instead of the symbol. Do not assume that because there are only 10 for now that they are restricted to these 10 digits (you're wrong).

Also, the articles above are mixing too many things and not easily linkable (we need anchors, which is the worst way to link articles between each other as anchors are not stable and almost impossible to check. Note also that these articles are incoherently organized. They are also missing a lot of info (notably about their respective contextual usage (by country/region or language), shaping, history of adoption, encodings in Unicode... And your articles are just speaking about the decimal digits only, not about digits for higher values, or fractional values that also exist and do not fit well in these generic articles! verdy_p (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Per WP:CAT#Overview, categories exist as a navigational aid. However, categories which contain only redirects are no use for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 17 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IU (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, this seems premature. Includes only the article IU (singer) and the category Category:IU (singer) albums. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:23, 13 March 2012 (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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nobel laureates by religion to Category:Lists of Nobel laureates by religion

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The articles included are list articles and it is a subcategory of Category:Lists of people by belief. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. If the category were being used as its title suggests it should, I would support deletion, but collecting lists is fine as long as the title reflects that. LeSnail (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies with patent assets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Most notable companies have patent assets. LeSnail (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Good heavens. This would include most tech companies for sure and many, many others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Good heavens. Is there any point in wading into this "discussion"? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as non-defining. It would be unlikely to include service companies, but in some sectors (such as manufacturing), nearly every major manufacturer will own patents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining per nom & BHG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- clearly non-defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very similar to another category from the same user which I just nominated for deletion, Category:Commenting available on articles online. I still want to commend the user on applying creativity though. __meco (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BHG, Carlos, Peter and Meco. Steam5 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2012 (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 all to Category:Urban planning in the United States. No prejudice against creating subcats of the target for individual cities, should it become necessary. (At least more than the one or few as currently in the soon to be deleted cats.) - jc37 03:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Planning and development in Atlanta, Georgia to Category:Planning and development by city in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The eleven subcategories in "Category:Planning and development by city in the United States" each contain either one or two articles with a grand total of 13 articles. It would be better to merge them into the main category.

Planning and development by city in the United States

• Category:Planning and development in Atlanta, Georgia
• Category:Planning and development in Boston, Massachusetts‎
• Category:Planning and development in Cincinnati, Ohio‎
• Category:Planning and development in Detroit, Michigan‎
• Category:Planning and development in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma‎
• Category:Planning and development in Chicago, Illinois‎
• Category:Planning and development in Dallas, Texas‎
• Category:Planning and development in Las Vegas, Nevada‎
• Category:Planning and development in New York City‎
• Category:Planning and development in Portland, Oregon‎
• Category:Planning and development in Washington, D.C.‎

Green Giant (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would Oppose the move on the name. If this merge was to happen it would need to be to Category:Urban planning in the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all except Atlanta (and any others with multiple articles). The target might usefully be renamed Category:Urban planning in the United States by city, but Vegaswikian's suggestion will not do as it will mix places with concepts. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that a by city category is correct here. Some of the article names provide no hint as to the city name. Also the by city categories are generally used to contain by city categories. Now, if we had articles on urban planning by city maybe that title could work, but many of these are agencies that work in this area and are not general articles about this topic in the cities. This is true for the few I looked at, I suppose there could be some exceptions, but the ones I saw make a proposed name using by city problematic. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support a merge for most to Category:Urban planning in the United States, because I think we lack sufficient content to justify these categories. Although it isn't populated well yet, there is enough material for Category:Planning and development in New York City‎, so we should keep this one. - Eureka Lott 17:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And delete Category:Planning and development by city in the United States? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly so. - Eureka Lott 21:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:Urban planning in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:European Championship (darts) to Category:European Championships (darts)

Nominator's rationale: Set categories need pluralisation. This is an individual sport and there is no qualification tournament since 2008 (which is incorporated in the 2008 article, and isn't long enough to warrant a separate article), thus neither squad nor qualifying articles will be created. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Convention throughout Category:Sports competitions by sport, including Category:Darts tournaments, is to use the event series name, with individual events listed in the main category or in a "competitions" subcategory: Category:Cricket World Cup not Category:Cricket World Cups, Category:NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship not Category:NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championships and so on, and that extends to defunct competitions like the Category:Speedway World Team Cup or the Category:Northern Ireland Trophy. - choster (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Copro Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redlink record label. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:29, 13 March 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Longueuil (agglomeration) to Category:Urban agglomeration of Longueuil
• Category:Incorporated places in Longueuil (agglomeration)‎ to Category:Incorporated places in the urban agglomeration of Longueuil

Nominator's rationale: Oppose speedy. Both Longueuil agglomeration categories will still be speedy renamed for a full discussion here to match the main article per C2D. Steam5 (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think the second one should be Category:Incorporated places in the urban agglomeration of Longueuil. We don't need the capital "U" and the article Urban agglomeration of Longueuil does not capitalize it in sentence text. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I fix it to a small case "u". Second category is fixed. Steam5 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. After dealing with the capitalization issue, I see nothing else wrong with the nomination; it makes sense to use the same language in the category as with the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question -- I assume that this is the translation of a French term. Would not "Longueuil urban area" or "Longueuil conurbation" be better English? I am not voting as I am the other side of the Atlantic. However the present name is horrid. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's common for the place to be referred to this way in English sources. It is sometimes referred to in different ways, such as "the Longueuil urban agglomeration", but the word "agglomeration" usually is used, because that's the word the English-language version of the statute that created the entity uses. All this is a matter for the article talk page, however. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French term "agglomération urbaine" is in fact defined legally, as well as on the INSEE website (official service for national statistics). It is different from the English/French "conurbation" because a conurbation is a set of distinct cities whose urbanisation are joined without gaps: you just cross the street to change of city. A conurbation can be international (e.g. Lille-Roubaix-Tourcoing in France is part of a larger conurbation extending to Belgium; as well as Strasbourg and its sububs in France and Kehl in Germany). A conurbation however does not have any legal aspect : each country organizes its own cities according to its legal framework.
  • An "agglomération" in French is not a set of communes, but could be a single hamlet within a larger commune grouping several villages, it could also be a conurbation, but it can also contain distinct communes that are NOT a conurbation (there may still exist a green corridor between them). E.g. in France: the city of Rennes, at large, is an urban agglomération, it is not a conurbation (except with only two communes in the agglomeration: Cesson-Sévigné and Saint-Jacques-de-la-Lande). The agglomeration is much larger and includes many more communes around Rennes. It is qualified as an "urban agglomeration" due to its total population. The terms "agglomeration" and "urbaine" are in fact directly used in legal public structures of cooperation between communes (EPCI), named "communauté d'agglomération" or "communauté urbaine" (depending on their size, the second being more populated). The term "agglomération urbaine" is a generic term for these structures. But there's also an older definition given by INSEE, which is more exact (based on maximum distance between houses and other buildings), because the EPCI's can choose to be named as they want. Don't translate legal terms by changing their actual meaning !
  • If you're in doubt, at least look at the French Wikipedia article that should be linked from the English article... You'll find here "Agglomération urbaine de Longueil" which is untranslatable, as it's the legal registered name of an EPCI. But if you want to translate it, keep all the words (so: "Urban agglomeration of Longueil", but certainly NOT with "conurbation" which would be completely false !) verdy_p (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realized that you spoke about the city in Québec, Canada, not the city in France (where it is consistantly written without the second u in all toponyms using this name). But the rationale is to keep the official name used in French and English (French being the only legal name, English being used in city's publications translated in English). verdy_p (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2012 (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, probably with no prejudice for recreation once other articles exist to populate it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Building engineering physics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. A relatively new term. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Category is significant.--Sanya3 (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question OK, fine, it's significant. What do you plan on populating it with? RevelationDirect (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This may be a significnat subject but unless it can be populated, it should not be a WP category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. There doesn't seem to be anything to populate this category apart from the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and per BHG. Steam5 (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2012 (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.