< February 7 February 9 >

February 8

Category:Constitution of Ireland

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 (non-admin closure). More specifically there is no agreement on whether or not Northern Ireland has a constitution. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that this relates to the 26-county state known on en.wp as the Republic of Ireland, rather than to the 32-county island of Ireland. Note that this will take the category name of out synch with the head article Constitution of Ireland ... but WP:C2D has an exception for ambiguity, and this is ambiguous. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that there is a view that the UK has a system of common and statute laws that is sometimes collectively characterised as an unwritten constitution. That is not the point here. The point is that Northern Ireland does not have a thing called constitution, written or otherwise. If Northern Ireland has a constitution at all, then that constitution is called the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It is most unlikely that such a thing would be confused with the well-known written document that is the Constitution of Ireland. So no need for disambiguation then. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly sources disagree with your assertion that Northern Ireland does not have a thing called constitution, written or otherwise. JSTOR shows 126 hits for "constitution of northern ireland". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The sources are in agreement that if NI has a thing called a constitution, then it is merely as a subordinate part of a larger political entity that also may be described as having a constitution, namely the UK. One of the sources, A.G. Donaldson, has this helpful definition:

“In this article the term is used with the meaning it has for the constitutional lawyer wishing to refer to the existence within the United Kingdom of a subordinate legislature and executive, and a separate judiciary; alternatively, the phrase denotes the Government of Ireland Act, 1920”

It would be helpful if you could point to any of the articles currently contained in the categories nominated that deal in any substantive way with the legislature, executive or judiciary of Northern Ireland. BTW, I'm still waiting for the nom to make a courtesy call to the Ireland ProjectLaurel Lodged (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LL, you start from an axiomatic view that a sub-national entity cannot have a constitution. That is demonstrably false: we have a whole Category:Constitutions of country subdivisions, into which Northern Ireland will fit. If you wanted sources, try a few JSTOR searches such as this crude generalised one, or this one for US state constitutions. As to the articles, start with Anglo-Irish Agreement, Good Friday Agreement, St Andrews Agreement and Government of Ireland Act 1920. There are at least half-a-dozen more.
Most of your reply is pure OR, inverting Donaldson's words from an assertion that here is one document to your claim that there is none. In any case, Donaldson's article was written in 1955 (62 years ago), since when there has been a raft of further developments in the constitution of NI. Y'see there was this thing called The Troubles, which brought about a lot changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Category:State constitutions of Germany contains articles about Bavaria etc, as you would expect. The number of articles about the constitution, written or otherwise, of Northern Ireland in the nominated categories is zero. Am I to take it that you wish to re-purpose the nominated categories to cater for articles that do not currently exist? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, the articles do exist. The discussion would be more productive if LL would note what has already been posted, rather than repeating a point which has already been disproven. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does BHG mean the sundry statutes and treaties (St Andrews Agreement, Government of Ireland Act 1920 etc) that form part of what may be loosely termed the constitution as it applies to Northern Ireland? If so, then I'm happy to inform her that many currently sit quite happily in their own category called Category:Constitutional laws of Northern Ireland. Note the correct use of the adjective, Constitutional, as opposed to the noun Constitution. They have no urgency to be shoe-horned into an exclusively RoI category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, we're getting somewhere at last. LL is slowly starting to accept that NI does have a constitution, albeit not as a single codified document, and that it needs to be categorised.
    However, it's a pity that LL has still not spotted that many of the components of the constitution of NI are not laws. So Category:Constitutional laws of Northern Ireland omits several key parts of the constitution of Norniron, such as the Good Friday Agreement, because they are not laws. That is why we need a broader category Category:Constitution of Northern Ireland to contain various articles and subcats for constitutional laws and referendums.
    However, LL's progress to this point has been unedifying.
    First we have LL's claim that a non-sovereign territory cannot a constitution. False.
    Then we had LL's claim that it's not a constitution unless it's a single document with that title. False
    Then we had LL's misrepresentation of a 60-year-old secondary source.
    Then we have the claim that it's not a constitution, just constitutional laws. False.
    This series of retreats has all been made by LL without any acknowledgement of error, which is what would be expected from someone arguing in good faith. It all gives a very strong impression of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT view being defended with whatever argument might be come to hand (for as long as it can be sustained), rather than an honest effort to follow the scholarly sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the nom wishes to create a new category to cater for the pot pourri that might be grandly labelled as a constitution in / of / for / by Northern Ireland, she should go ahead and do it. Such an action has nothing to do with the current nomination. As every editor has made clear regarding the current nominations, it's not broken, there's no need to fix it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope the other editors feel suitably admonished for getting it wrong. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting from WP:IMOS: "Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").". If @Carlossuarez46: or the nom wants to re-write the IMOS, suggest that they try to get consensus there. Until then, please respect the IMOS. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMOS supports the renaming. Both parts of Ireland have a constitution, so they need to be differentiated. The head article Constitution of Ireland makes 9 body-text mentions of Northern Ireland, so the two topics are discussed in the same context. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 17 February 2017 (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:Sports organizations of Austria

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, with no prejudice against any request to change the basic scheme of the Category:Sports organisations by country subcats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. However see Category:Organisations based in Austria by subject Category:Organisations based in Austria, the tree should be consistent. Austria has no ties to American English so no reason to use that spelling either. Tim! (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at CFD/S
  • Please note that you have voted twice in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: No, I didn't. The fist comment was made at speedy, and copied here. Speedy discussions are usually collapsed, and not counted as part of the substantive CFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • BrownHairedGirl please see your own argument here. Tim! (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "in". The convention is "of".
    There might be a case for changing the convention, but not for creating a single exception to the convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tree needs cleaning up which I was thinking of doing after this nomination is decided, as there some alternatives in use such as Category:Sports organisations based in Egypt. Tim! (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed A journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2017 (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 shooting sports

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: to clarify that this relates to sport, rather than to non-sporting activities such such a school shootings and other forms of gun crime.
This is a followup to a group nomination of 66 categories at CFD 2016 December 31. Maybe I could have listed these 3 as speedies at WP:CFD/S, but it seemed a bit dodgy to do that, because I had created these 3 while the previous CFD was still open and had neglected to add them to that listing. If others want to speedy them, that's fine by me, but I didn't want to presume it was OK. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 8 February 2017 (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 read Orpheus novels

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:User_categories#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories: Overly narrow scope —swpbT 16:59, 8 February 2017 (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:Users who donate blood plasma

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. It does not help improve content by grouping together Wikipedians who happen to donate blood plasma. Additionally, this uses the incorrect "users" instead of "Wikipedians." VegaDark (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2017 (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 "out to get you" and/or your garage band

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. – Fayenatic London 07:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Seems to be some sort of joke category. VegaDark (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. Every single keep !vote except the one from Calton gives a specific reason that has nothing to do with liking it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of the keep !votes advocate using social networking features on en.wp because they like it, which is specifically deprecated in the long-standing policy WP:NOTSOCIAL. And please try to stay civil. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 23 March 2017 (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 not "right-minded", and glad of it!

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. On the numbers, this is split evenly (3:3), but WP:NOTAVOTE. Closers are obliged to weigh arguments rather than just count votes, and those opposing deletion run counter to the long-standing guideline at WP:USERCAT#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories. Several of the !votes were based on a defence of this category as a joke, but the guideline is very clear that joke categories are inappropriate, and the networking arguments run counter to long-standing policy at WP:NOTSOCIAL. So I attach little wight to those arguments, and as a result I find a clear consensus to delete.
As the lede of WP:USERCAT says, if a Wikipedian wishes to have such a notice, they may edit their user page and add the notice in some other way (such as by adding text or a userbox), rather than inappropriately creating a category grouping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who are not "right-minded", and glad of it! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. A classic inappropriate type of user category as a "not" based category (see here for similar deletions). VegaDark (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2017 (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 not interested in researching history

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. Unanimous support based on long-standing policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. A classic inappropriate type of user category as a "not" based category (see here for similar deletions). VegaDark (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2017 (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 interested in fighting unemployment

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. Unanimous support based on long-standing policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. A classic inappropriate type of user category as a category that groups users by advocacy of a position. Users who are serious about actually collaborating on improving content can create and join Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to unemployment. VegaDark (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2017 (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 wish LHvU would come back

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. The arguments for deletion were well-founded in policy, but they were way outnumbered by a significant majority of editors favouring retention. Many of those arguments were variants of WP:ILIKEIT, but then some keep !voters pointed out that a category intended to encourage the return of an esteemed contributor was about as strong an expression of collaboration as you could find ... and encouraging collaboration is the core of WP:USERCAT.
So the result is a clear consensus to keep this category. And welcome back, User:LessHeard vanU. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. I don't know what LHvU is, but it's completely irrelevant - "Wikipedians who wish" for anything is not a category naming scheme that supports collaboration. We should not be categorizing users based on things they wish for or against. VegaDark (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand that this IS very personal? We hear far to little from this user, and many others I miss, miss daily. I don't understand why we have to delete this little expression of personal appreciation. If it's against policy, how about changing such policy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: To be clear, I would support deletion of literally any category beginning with the title "Wikipedians who wish" which is why I suggest this is not personal. This is an unencyclopedic naming convention plain on its face. People are drawing on their emotions about wanting this user to come back in relation to this category, when I went in to this without a clue this was even referencing a user.VegaDark (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unwarranted? I am insulted that you should think that people may not express the wish I might come back... have I done something that forbids such an expression, that I should never return to the project? I will make something clear; the community is at pains to create a neutral informative and comprehensive encyclopedia. This is realised by participation in a project, which attempts to mould a disparate group with differing capabilities and personalities into a cohesive functioning editing unit. As such, the whims and fancies of any section which contributes to the greater enterprise should never be stifled or reduced. Do you believe that Albert Einstein would have been a greater genius if he had endeavoured to have his hair better managed? Seriously, people write this magnificent encyclopedia because of pride in knowledge and that it is fun. Any policy that makes contributing less enjoyable is wrong, and needs removing immediately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing my not wanting a category for users to express their wish for you to come back with me wanting to stifle their wish for you to come back. I don't care if they do it in userspace. I care that this is an unencyclopedic category bleeding in to category space. You need to tone it down here. VegaDark (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, category names should make it abundantly clear what they are for. I was guessing this was an abbreviation for a TV show or something when I nominated it, which is a good reason for a rename at minimum. The fact that it's about a user doesn't change the rationale for deletion in the least, however - "Users who wish" is an unencyclopedic naming convention. VegaDark (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Next they'll be telling us userboxes can't be funny (actually, I personally seldom find them funny, but that's not the point). Look at the other categories being nominated for deletion right here on this page -- we've got someone on a crusade. 15:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
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 support a Federal Europe

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. A classic inappropriate type of user category as a category that groups users by advocacy of a position. VegaDark (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have all the users in the category been notified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs)

User:BSOleader, User:Byzantium Purple, User:Consciousbutnotinert, User:Pablokalata3, User:Ugion/EU Federalist, User:Unionvox/UBX. Rathfelder (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly disagree, and consider your pinging them disruptive canvassing so your position on the CfD is more likely to be the outcome of the debate, which I hope the closing admin takes into account if necessary, as this category clearly violates policy and "It will leave a redlink behind on userpages" is not a legitimate reason to support keeping something. VegaDark (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sure that the closing admin will have little difficulty in distinguishing between arguments founded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and those based WP:ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. And I am sure too that the closer will fulfil their responsibility to discount arguments which are not founded in policy or guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 10 February 2017 (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 stand up to foo-fighting bullies

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. Unanimous support based on long-standing policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. It's not clear what exactly this is supposed to categorize users by, but it is quite clear that whatever it is won't help improve the encyclopedia by grouping users in said categorization. VegaDark (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2017 (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 remember the 1970s

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. On the numbers, this is split 5:4 in favour of deletion, but WP:NOTAVOTE. Closers are obliged to weigh arguments rather than just count votes, and those opposing deletion run counter to the long-standing guideline at WP:USERCAT#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories. Several of the !votes were based on a defence of this category as a joke, but the guideline is very clear that joke categories are inappropriate, and the networking arguments run counter to long-standing policy at WP:NOTSOCIAL. So I attach little wight to those arguments, and as a result I find a clear consensus to delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Categorize those who "remember" anything, let alone a decade, is not productive to encyclopedia building. VegaDark (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2017 (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:T.O.P (rapper)

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. For the record, this currently contains 3 sub-cats, 3 articles and a template. – Fayenatic London 12:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: When there are enough distinct articles related to the musician that could warrant such a category, it can be recreated. Otherwise, numerous precedent and WP:OCEPON suggest eponymous categories are unnecessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:15, 8 February 2017 (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:Organisations based in the Netherlands by place

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 merge WP:C2E. – Fayenatic London 14:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Now that I have moved the Caribbean organisations to the subcat Category:Organisations based in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, this single-parent, 3-item category is no longer needed. It is not part of any wider series, so can be merged to its sole parent. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 8 February 2017 (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:Tom and Jerry of Van Beuren

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. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D: Tom and Jerry (Van Beuren). Trivialist (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2017 (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:Works relating to Joan of Arc

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. Interested editors are encouraged to split the contents to the existing Category:Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc and a new Category:Joan of Arc in art. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:: This would be more in line with the other categories, which also follow "Works about..." , rather than "Works relating to..." - User:Kjell Knudde, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
That would exclude biographies. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2017 (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