< October 24 October 26 >

October 25

[edit]

Category:Lists of Pope John Paul II

[edit]
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) 20:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename The current name doesn't work since there's only one John Paul II. I think the awkward title was intended to make it a subcategory of Category:Lists of Roman Catholic popes but that doesn't work since, say, List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II outside Italy is not a list of popes. (Note that I've fixed the categorization and made the category a subcat of Category:Roman Catholic-related lists.) Pichpich (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. I've modified the proposal. Pichpich (talk) 02:16, 26 October 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.

Category:Waterfront Hotels & Casinos

[edit]
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) 20:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This hotel is part of a very small chain (for which there's no article) and none of the other hotels in the chain currently have articles. Moreover I'm not so sure they're that notable to start with. So this category is not providing any help for navigation and should be deleted. Pichpich (talk) 23:25, 25 October 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.

Category:Helix (band)

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. The category is basically an empty shell containing only the albums category. Pichpich (talk) 23:14, 25 October 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.

Category:Trujillo Festivals (Peru)

[edit]
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) 20:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to follow the naming conventions. This is my preferred option but upmerging to Category:Festivals in Peru is another decent option since only three entries truly fit the "Festivals in Trujillo" description. Pichpich (talk) 23:10, 25 October 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.

Category:Maccabiah Games rugby union teams

[edit]
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) 21:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category contains just one article and will not be containing more as all the other teams that participate in this tournament had their articles deleted. Bob247 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 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.

Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games‎ subcategories

[edit]
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) 21:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories all contain just one article which are also located in the parent category, Category:Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games‎. Also, these categories will unlikely contain more articles as a whole bunch were deleted as they failed WP:GNG here. Bob247 (talk) 20:45, 25 October 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.

Category:Wikipedians who are a net negative as an influence on Wikipedia

[edit]
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 per WP:SNOW. This is a blatant attack page, which was correctly deleted per WP:CSD#G10. It was re-created by a non-admin, and per speedy deletion policy it was eligible for further speedy deletion. To prevent its creation again, I have salted it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who are a net negative as an influence on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. First, the background. There exists Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian. Fron what I can piece together from various discussions, the category was created following an insulting comment from one editor to another. Speedy deletion was requested and denied. It was then proposed for deletion and in the couse of that discussion was speedily deleted as an attack category intended to disparage. Discussion then moved to deletion review. In the course of that discussion this category was created. I asked that it be speedy deleted as an attack/disparagement category. It was deleted and the category creator recreated it.

This category should be deleted for several reasons. It is an attack/disparagement category and its name leaves no room for dispute on that point. Saying that an editor has a negative influence on Wikipedia is an insult. That the category creator put himself in it, I assume ironically, does not change that.

The category does not serve the purpose of a Wikipedians category, which is to foster collaboration between Wikipedians. If a Wikipedian's presence on the project is a "net negative" then the likelihood of collaboration between them is low and any such collaboration would likely not benefit or improve the project.

Finally, the category was created in the course of the deletion review, in clear violation of WP:POINT. The project is disrupted by the existence of attack/disparagement categories, it is disrupted when an editor re-creates a category after it's been deleted and it's disrupted when a week-long discussion is forced by the category's creation.

In my opinion the category should again be speedy deleted as an attack and it should be blocked from being recreated (and the creator should be strongly encouraged not to create other similar categories). If it cannot be speedy deleted then it should be deleted per the argument laid out above.

For the record I don't know anything about the underlying dispute and to the best of my knowledge have had no interaction with any of the involved parties outside of what's disclosed in these discussions. Buck Winston (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Let the other discussion run its course. There is no need to start a parallel discussion here. If the other category is deleted, then delete this. If the other stays, keep this. No drama. No redundant discussions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, this is not a "parallel discussion". It is a discussion of this category and is independent of the other. Second, regardless of what happens to the other category, this category still needs to go. Third, you should identify yourself as the creator and re-creator of the nominated category. Buck Winston (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Buck,
    The discussions are contemporaneous, and the arguments there apply here, so don't waste others' time with a duplicate discussion, unless you have an original thought to contribute. What is new in your verbiage? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:33, 25 October 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.

Subnational entities

[edit]
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) 20:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename following super-cat category:Country subdivisions and others in Category:Categories by country subdivision. – Fayenatic London 20:28, 25 October 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.

Category:Folk Heroes of Assam

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for Category:Folk heroes by ethnicity and only one entry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 25 October 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.

Category:Wedding dress designers

[edit]
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 main category, upmerge nationality categories. I've taken the liberty to upmerge the lightly populated Category:American wedding dress designers and Category:British wedding dress designers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional nominations by Fayenatic london:
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Seems like a rather unnecessary split from fashion designers based on having designed a single type of garment. Surely most fashion designers will have designed one at some point and it is unlikely to be a defining trait.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens to the main category I would agree that the nationality sub cats are not needed . In future if the main one got huge I could see it but not in the present.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only meant to upmerge the two small sub-cats that I have nominated, but have no objection to double-upmerge of the British and American sub-cats as well. – Fayenatic London 17:14, 26 October 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.

Category:Slovakian aircraft

[edit]
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) 20:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This does not follow the tree naming convention. Renaming to what is anticapted to be the outcome of this discussion. The others can probably be done as speedy nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 25 October 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.

Category:Goldfinger (band)

[edit]
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. This category was nominated by the same editor at CFD September 30, which was closed on October 7 as "keep", after nobody supported deletion. If the nominator disagreed with that closure, they could have opened a DRV, but it is tendentious to start a new discussion only 18 days later, and this renomination should have been procedurally closed as soon as it was opened.
Since it was not closed, and ran its course, I have assessed it in the usual way for repeat nominations, by considering whether there is a consensus that anything has changed since the previous discussion. In this case, there is no consensus that the previous discussion was flawed or that it overlooked a crucial issue, so the result is keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. The two subcats are linked via ((catseealso))--why keep this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:37, 25 October 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.

Category:Do-Re-Mi (band)

[edit]
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, partly for the same reasons that apply to my Closure of above the discussion on Category:Goldfinger (band). In this case renomination only 18 days after the the previous nomination by the same editor has produced a clear consensus to keep the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. The two subcats are linked via ((catseealso))--why keep this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Eponymous are discouraged? I don't see any such directive at Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous categories.
  2. Your proposed deletion was defeated some three weeks ago, see here, how has the situation changed sufficiently for it to now be deletable?
  3. I'll see if I can add an images subcat.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:48, 25 October 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.

Category:Models (band)

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. The two subcats are linked via ((catseealso))--why have this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Eponymous are discouraged? I don't see any such directive at Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous categories.
  2. Your proposed deletion was defeated some three weeks ago, see here, how has the situation changed sufficiently for it to now be deletable?
  3. I'll see if I can add some images to increase the content.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:43, 25 October 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.

Category:Beat Happening

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:34, 25 October 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.

Category:Sri Lankan refugee camps

[edit]
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 to Category:Refugee camps in Sri Lanka. There was no discussion of the nominator's related proposal for restructuring, but since there were no objections I presume that it is uncontroversial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to follow the lead article Sri Lankan IDP camps. The article names all include "IDP camps" (for internally displaced person). An alternative would be Category:Refugee camps in Sri Lanka following others in Category:Refugee camps by location. There is at present no hierarchy for IDP camps other than the grandparent Category:Refugee camps; it contains Category:Displaced Persons camps but that was for a specific period following WW2.
Also restructure making the category a sub-cat of Category:Sri Lankan internment camps and removing the articles from that, as they are currently also all in it. That would leave the latter containing the renamed category plus Polonnaruwa Rajakeeya Madya Maha Vidyalaya which was used as a rehab camp at a different period. It also currently contains Vanni Mouse, a short film set in an IDP camp, so I would move that into the renamed category.
This could have been a speedy nomination under WP:C2D, but a full discussion seemed appropriate. – Fayenatic London 18:11, 25 October 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.

Category:British people by second-level administrative subdivision

[edit]
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 to Category:People by county in the United Kingdom. The commenters don't feel like Scotland's council areas are meaningfully different than counties, so a more specific category name is warranted. Regardless, the category should match the "People by (X) in (Y)" format of the other subcategories of Category:People by second-level administrative country subdivision.--Mike Selinker(talk) 08:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:British people by second-level administrative subdivision to Category:British people by second-level country subdivision
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency. I've separately nominated all the ones that have "administrative country subdivision" to be shortened, dropping the unnecessary word "administrative", in line with parent Category:Country subdivisions. This may be different as it's just one country, which has different names for its second-level subdivisions in the various first-level subdivisions, so I have moved it out for separate discussion. Nevertheless "administrative" is not correct, as Category:People by county in England states that it groups people "by current ceremonial county", not by district even when they are unitary coucils (which have former county council responsibilities). – Fayenatic London 20:54, 25 October 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.

More country subdivisions

[edit]
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Shorten, dropping the unnecessary word "administrative", in line with parent Category:Country subdivisions. – Fayenatic London 14:36, 25 October 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.

Category:Malaysian albums in 1976

[edit]
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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This sort of intersection is too specific which is why the present category is the only one of the form Category:Fooian albums in year XXXX. Note that there is no need to upmerge since the lone album in the category is already a child of Category:1976 albums and a grandchild of Category:Albums by Malaysian artists. Pichpich (talk) 14:15, 25 October 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.

Category:Stellar Kart

[edit]
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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. The category only contains the standard songs and albums categories and a discography article. That's a little too thin for an eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 13:46, 25 October 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.

Category:South American organization stubs

[edit]
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. Further reorganization may be done at editors' discretion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Has about the same article count as the perm cat, but still severely undersized. Keep template but upmerge until article count supports stub category (60+). Dawynn (talk) 09:28, 25 October 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.

Category:Listed palaces in Scotland

[edit]
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split this into Category:Listed buildings in Scotland and Category:Palaces in Scotland. Sub-dividing listed buildings into palaces and non-palaces offers no benefit and simply makes navigation more tiresome - especially after the usual over-zealous deletion of transitive categorization. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The category Category:Listed palaces in Scotland is a subcategory of both Category:Listed palaces in the United Kingdom and Category:Listed buildings in Scotland by function which has 26 types (functions) of building including palaces, and Category:Listed buildings in Scotland is effectively a container category. Palaces is one of the smaller categories of listed buildings in Scotland, but is not the smallest. Is it proposed to upmerge other categories of listed building in Scotland and lose the two-way links to Scotland and to the United Kingdom categories? But I would favour including Listed palaces in the main palaces category also; a tag is avaliable saying contents of the subcat are also in the main cat. Hugo999 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for Category:Listed palaces in Scotland, then just the same for England or the UK.
It's almost impossible to give a good reason against a MediaWiki category, as categories are cheap and don't get in the way. However this isn't MediaWiki, it's Wikipedia, where a dogma against transitive categories is ruthlessly over-enforced. So having "listed palaces" must also essentially devalue the far more useful categories of "listed buildings" and "palaces".
"Listed palaces" is a trivial intersection. It's obviously easy to categorize these, but what value does this add? When would a reader interested in "palaces in Scotland" ever want to see them listed, but excluding the unlisted examples? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 25 October 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.

Category:Ethnic Armenian Olympians who represented other countries

[edit]
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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Ethnic Armenian Olympians who represented other countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I think this is WP:OVERCAT, non-defining and a possible BLP issue. I've already posted a comment on the creator's talkpage raising issues with adding this category to articles, when it is not sourced in the body of the text. No other categories exist in this structure (IE ethnic x who represented...). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No other categories exist in this structure
This is untrue. See Category:Olympic competitors from Iran who represented other countries
That category inspired me to make this one in the first place.
Does this fall under Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation?
It says "only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right."
There is already an entire article called List of Armenian Olympic medalists. It's already a topic of interest that most successful Armenian Olympians have represented other countries. I'm going to mention this page in the category.
Also, I will add a source that proves they are of Armenian descent for all the articles that don't have one if we keep this. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 12:58, 25 October 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.

Category:Khazar–Arab Wars

[edit]
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Khazar–Arab Wars to Category:Arab–Khazar Wars
Nominator's rationale: Per the recently renamed main article, Arab–Khazar Wars. Speedy renaming under criterion C2.D was proposed but challenged due to the recentness of the page move. I am neutral. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:47, 25 October 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.

Category:Railway stations opened in 1829

[edit]
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, without prejudice to any further nomination relating to Peterkingirons's proposal to rename. That proposal would involve several other categories (Category:Railway stations opened in 1812‎ and Category:Railway stations opened in 1825‎, so it should be pursued through a group nomination to merge them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty MakecatTalk 02:44, 25 October 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.
More