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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Although this page recently had its own discussion (May 31) resulting in "Keep", that did not prejudice a simultaneous discussion on the wider category scheme (June 1), which closed with a decision to listify all the others. This category has now been listified at List of cases of police brutality in the United Kingdom. I believe that this separate nomination is now procedurally necessary to delete this category. – FayenaticLondon 20:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G6 - Housekeeping. The broader discussion supersedes the more specific in this case. And the listifying is done. - jc37 15:59, 2 August 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.
Nominator's rationale: This essentially duplicates the aerosols category, and is redundant now that I have cleaned up the distinction in the categories between the spray cans (Aerosol spray) and the suspension of particles in a gas (Aerosol). NHSavage (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a procedural point, please don't empty a category before putting it up for deletion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - added this back to all articles where I replaced it. --NHSavage (talk) 09:11, 5 August 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:Ethnically nepotistic football clubs[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.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Blatantly offensive"? No. "Non-notable, un-encyclopedic, nothing but OR, pointless" - yes. GiantSnowman 18:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From our article: "Nepotism is favoritism granted to relatives regardless of merit." Accusing a group of favoring relatives regardless of merit doesn't seem blatantly offensive to you? --GRuban (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Snowball delete it now to prevent others from wasting time typing delete here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Canoe1967. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Canoe emptied it yesterday, see the above linked-to discussion at BLP. I'd like to drive the final nail in to the coffin. --GRuban (talk) 01:03, 31 July 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:Keep. The nominator agreed to the "Keep and add sub-cats" proposal, and no one else supported deletion. Any usere is free to create the subcats and move articles down from this category into them. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sub-cats. The lead article, Oprah Radio and two new sub-cats justify keeping the current one. – FayenaticLondon 18:59, 1 August 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 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Inappropriate topic for categorization. The concept of industrial district that was used to classify articles is not a "defining characteristic" of the articles placed in these categories -- and is not itself clearly defined. Thus, it does not meet the test defined at WP:Categorization, i.e., that categorization of articles should be based on "the defining characteristics of a subject of the article". Additionally, the places that have been added to these categories do not meet the test of being commonly and consistently defined as "industrial districts". The categorization concept might have merit in some individual countries, as suggested in discussion that has occurred at Category talk:Industrial districts in Russia, but it is not meaningful as a global category hierarchy. Orlady (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the article for this category, the contents should probably be sub-city areas of industrial concentration, but they are not. It is not well thought out and does not seem to be working as a way to categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the editor who made these categories, I'd like to explain myself. I'd admit that it was probably not well thought out. However, I believe that the options for browsing with a human geography perspective is limited. There are, as far as I've been able to establish, no categories or templates that enable the reader to learn more about how economy and geography interrelates. This might have been a poor attempt to create such a hierarchy, but I think Orlady is a little to categorical in their dismissal of the topic's appropriateness. Much like having been a fortified city shapes the physical structure of a city, a strong industrial presence may too, in addition to making its mark on local culture, and may very well be defining to its character. Nonetheless, I do not oppose the deletion of the categories, and take note of the criticism put forward. If other editors believe that there is some merit to the idea, bar this incarnation, they are welcome to discuss it on my talk page.benjamiltalk/edits 21:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with thought. The categorization has merit but is hard to objectively quantify. The examples that spring to my mind are Rust Belt zones like those in Detroit, Gary, Flint, but even those are maybe more accurately called post-industrial districts, since the industries have moved out. It's just too much of a judgment call.--Lockley (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are still factories in Detroit. Not as many as in the past, but not all the factories are gone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 3 August 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:deleted as empty (Userspace pages are not categorised in content categories). The BushrangerOne ping only 04:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem like a very useful category. Perhaps it was emptied out of process. In any case, it's not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really being used, unclear what would go here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The user page in it says it would include "categorization of cities by their UTC timezone". I think that has gone, anyway. – FayenaticLondon 20:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as C1 - empty except for a userspace page, and the user is inactive since last year. - jc37 03:44, 1 August 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 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) 12:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This would be an open-and-closed C2D case, except the article for this institution is somehow a redlink still. Renaming the category to the actual name of the institution the category is for alumni of. The BushrangerOne ping only 06:28, 30 July 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:Churches dedicated to the Sacred Heard[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 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:Faculty of Art Students League of New York[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.
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories; the target is at the standard naming format for this category tree. The BushrangerOne ping only 04:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As creator of this cat (a long time ago) this merge seems completely non-controversial to me. Heck yeah. Good work. --Lockley (talk) 04:57, 30 July 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:History of the Religious Society of Friends[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.
Rename to Category:History of Quakerism per The Bushranger. The main article Quakers was moved in Sept 2011 following Talk:Quakers/Archive_5#Requested_Move, where "Quakerism" also had support. The history article was only moved this week, by the nominator Justin (koavf)with the edit summary "per main", without recent discussion as far as I can see, so its name should not be binding on this CFD. A 2009 discussion about the name of the history page records that the long name was chosen then because at the time it corresponded to the main article; otherwise, Quakerism was among favoured suggestions. – FayenaticLondon 18:55, 1 August 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:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Religious Society of Friends[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.
Comment I would certainly support Orlady's last nomination. Orthodox Church is not exactly an unambiguous term, even if we take the postion that there is enough unity among those who see some religious authority in the Patriarch of Constantinople to define them as a "Church".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 3 August 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.
This should go C2D then most likely. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)