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:Rename to one of a few reasonable possibilities. My own preference is Category:Haitian Creole-language writers since it matches both the parent category and the article Haitian Creole language. (Haitian-language, Creole-language would also be possibilities) Pichpich (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCAT. Contains only main article, character list and episode list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already contains main article, character list and episode list. This is a current TV series, with expansion for both the series and our content. Clear practice for similar shows is that a category is justified for similar series. Where is this Wikipedia byte shortage the nominator seems to be so concerned about? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what the hell it would be expanded with? Don't expect the house to build itself. We don't usually HOPE that stuff will expand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything can be appropriately linked to from the main article; category adds little navigational utility. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All articles are already interlinked and the navigation box {{Chuggington}} is a better tool than a category. Pichpich (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2011 (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:Cartoon Network Development Studio Europe[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2011 (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 all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 10:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The majority of the list should be moved due to the orphan initialism of WWE that was made last month. "Armageddon" is also listed as despite the event being discontinued in 2008, I feel it should also be moved for consistency's sake with the WWE initials already widely (and perhaps exclusively) linked to World Wrestling Entertainment even before last month. --Θakster 13:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all - Per new name of company.--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:40, 7 May 2011 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To conform with the overall "Wikipedia <blank>" naming scheme, to differentiate between mainspace categories and project space categories. Also more descriptive. Ϫ 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As being non-defining. Lugnuts (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete? It's still a useful category.. I was only proposing to rename.. to something that IS defining. -- Ϫ 01:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this comment should be for the CfD below. Someone can move it. Lugnuts (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename non-article categories should be clearly delineated from article categories. 65.93.12.8 (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and anon's comment above.--Lenticel(talk) 23:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and anon's comment above. Neutralitytalk 04:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete Entirely subjective unless one defines the category using the American Parental Advisory system (which would make the category US-centric). Pichpich (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia per above, plus subjective. There are also numerous albums with such songs - thousands may be - do we include bawdy folk songs?--MacRusgail (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This can not be subjective at all. The Perental advisory sticker is used in the UK as well. If an album or single released in the UK contains strong language, or expolicit lyrics, it gets this sticker and should therefore be placed in the categories. There is nothing biased about this category. IOt is just there for reference, nothing more. Cexycy (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that would create a number of problems. The first one is that only fairly recent albums and songs would be included since the Parental Advisory stickers only date back to the eighties. As Mac points out, songs with potentially offensive lyrics were not invented in 1985. The second is that the set of albums declared as potentially offensive by some form of national authority will not be the same from country to country. Pichpich (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a trivial detail and variable depending on where you are. Each country has its own standards of what would constitute "explicit" language. Some words are "explicit" in America that are not explicit elsewhere, and vice versa. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As other editors have mentioned above, relatively trivial and subjective besides. Neutralitytalk 04:24, 5 May 2011 (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:Villages, Towns and Cities in Ghana[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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge Same scope but the latter category uses the standard form for such categories. Pichpich (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Populated places as a category contains places that have huge populations in Ghana but the second category does not only profile places that have high numbers of people. So I think that populated places should rather be added to the category about villages, towns and cities in Ghana since populated places would be found in such places but not all unpopulated places can make themselves onto the category Populated places in Ghana.--CrossTempleJay talk 17:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is something unique about the places in Ghana, these places should not be in a single category like Category:Villages, Towns and Cities in Ghana which mixes three different types of places. Those should be split into categories for the villages, towns and cities. This can be done after an upmerge to the proper parent category. In addition this category is not correctly named, if it were kept it should be Category:Villages, towns and cities in Ghana. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator's reasoning. Neutralitytalk 04:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, the standard is to have Populated places be the base category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2011 (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 delete per creator's request below. (non-admin closure) Pichpich (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge Categories have exactly the same scope. Pichpich (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one user in the category anyway, might as well just delete it. -- Ϫ 12:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this exactly what this CfD will achieve? Pichpich (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I guess.. I just don't know why you proposed merging when there's nothing to merge. -- Ϫ 01:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could have emptied the cat manually and submitted it for speedy deletion but strictly speaking that wouldn't have been very good procedure. Pichpich (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just do it. I didn't know there was already a category for that. Logan The Master (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Logan The Master[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. All of these categories are accessible under Category:Contract bridge. If the Wikiproject needs further accessibility, several of the commenters below offer useful suggestions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete This is a duplicate of Category:Contract bridge with the subcategory structure removed (i.e. only leaves of the subtree are listed). It's not helpful to have this parallel system and it's confusing for readers. Pichpich (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are noted, but it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not this category is "helpful". I have done most of my editing on contract bridge related articles and I find the category of considerable use in the furtherance of those articles. I agree that when the contract bridge articles are all at a more mature stage, the category would be redundant, but in the interim, it is extremely useful for coordination of efforts on the contract bridge project. Newwhist (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the objective is maintenance, then the best solution would be to create something akin to Category:WikiProject Chess articles. The category would then contain Talk pages rather than articles and the duplication problem would be avoided. I can help (a bit) if you need a hand (no bridge pun intended). Pichpich (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; maintenance categories should not work this way. The suggestion by LeSnail is reasonable, but the maintenance category ( e.g. Category:WikiProject Contract bridge articles) can be easily re-populated so that it contains talk pages, by editing the {{WPCB}}. No such user (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it's categories you need to list for the project's maintenance purposes, I suggest using something similar to Category:Category-Class Chemistry articles, which is used on category talk pages. The project talk page banner could even be made to add the category automatically. Jafeluv (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And a whole subcategory. I thought the current tactic was to empty a category, and then complain there was nothing in it. But clearly an article and a subcategory with a number of articles isn't good enough... --MacRusgail (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not enough for an eponymous category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is more than one article related to this guy. They are just neatly organized in two subcategories. DreamFocus 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a container category. This is a textbook case of WP:OC#EPON. Pichpich (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This should have been listed on the literature/novels project, please do so forthwith.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not a literature/novels category, so it has no need to go there. It is a eponymous bio category which has a whole different set of rules. Just because you can great a "Books by person X" category does not mean there also needs to be a "person X" category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. There is an article, but also a category for works (and as an author, it's the works that represent the bulk of coverage). I find it hard to take these nominations as a serious and well thought-out attempt to improve the encyclopedia when they make false claims like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per long list of precedents and the relevant guideline that explains the appropriateness of eponymous categories. Pichpich (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Noted science fiction/fantasy writer, with plenty of articles in a number of subcategories.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see the point of breaking category heirarchies, when subcategories have multiple articles. Why aren't you allowed to navigate the authors category tree? Instead you have to navigate through the works category tree. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not enough for an eponymous category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a fine parent category. Where else would you hold the rest? DreamFocus 20:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The articles in the subcategory are appropriately categorized as works by Robert Silverberg and the subcategory is in turn properly categorized in Category:Works by author and Category:Works by American people. It further includes (as it should) a link back to the author's article. The parent is an unnecessary level of categorization. Pichpich (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This should have been listed on the literature/novels project, please do so forthwith.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. The precendent is 100% clear on this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bestselling writer with 72 Wikipedia articles existing for him and his work. Everything but his main article fits into various subcategories.
Works by Peter David (2 C, 5 P)
Comics by Peter David (1 C, 15 P)
Characters created by Peter David (38 P)
Novels by Peter David (13 P)
Would it make sense to have all of these and not a place for the main article about the guy, Peter David? DreamFocus 06:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator does not understand importance of subcat.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see the point of breaking category heirarchies, when subcategories have multiple articles. Why aren't you allowed to navigate the authors category tree? Instead you have to navigate through other category trees. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not enough for an eponymous category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This should have been listed on the literature/novels project, please do so forthwith.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dream Focus, the very fact that you admit that all articles except the main one can be put in works by person X category is actually support for deleting this article. I really suggest people read the rule on eponymous categories that was linked to above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not enough for an eponymous category. The album covers category could just be a subcategory of the albums category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just an albums category and its covers. All the albums are linked from the eponymous article in question. That's overcategorization per WP:OC#Eponymous. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three articles now in cat. How much is minimum?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That requires discussion which I tried to start up in the past without success. Right now there's only precedent. I like to see something more than just subcats for albums and songs, a discography and a template. Usually eponymous categories for music groups will be kept that have articles on its individual members. For that reason, I say Weak Keep on this one. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator does not understand importance of subcats.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. I do not think it should be deleted. Three articles and two subcats are enough.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All the articles here can be easily linked into the main article. This is the classic example of the type of eponymous category not to create, it is a text book example of a violation of the rules against over-categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does not violate WP:EPON, on the contrary. It does not "contain 3 articles", it contains over 30 in total (including subcats). If this is not reasonable eponymous category, I don't know what is. No such user (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2011 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vanity category? To assume that Coolhawks88 created this category so that he could bask in his own glory is not exactly assuming good faith. I could see an argument for deletion because this is the only subcategory of Category:Wikipedia books (user books). However user books are a relatively new thing and organizing them along those lines does not seem far-fetched. Pichpich (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2011 (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. Courcelles 21:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article/cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A better solution is to move the main article to LeToya which is the most common name for her as an artist. Pichpich (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Until the other proposed solution is implemented, the nominator is correct. The categories should follow the article name of the person. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:45, 9 May 2011 (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. Courcelles 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article/cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A better solution is to move the main article to LeToya which is the most common name for her as an artist. Pichpich (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Until the other proposed solution is implemented, the nominator is correct. The categories should follow the article name of the person. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also has 2 subcategories, each with a combined 4 more articles. There are several more Monifah songs in the 90s that were hit records that could potentially have articles; they just haven't been written yet. Shaliya waya (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough content to warrant an eponymous category. Two subcategories is typically not enough. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The total number of articles that already exist (not to mention the potential articles that could be added) make this category useful for navigation. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mostly a gallery with no FUR. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator does not understand importance of subcat.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything in the category is linked from Hussein Fatal. Per WP:OC#Eponymous, "Articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories) typically are already links in the eponymous article in question." --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2011 (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 deleted on creator's request (Non-admin closure). Pichpich (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was an image category at Wikimedia:Commons which had to be moved to the Wikipedia because of copyright issues. The images need to be categorized somewhere. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled. Why was there a copyright issue at Commons, but not apparently here? Why didn't you move the images to your user page? --Kleinzach 05:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use images are the usual reason. OK here (with care), not OK at Commons. We also have some legacy issues remaining where old PD images are on Wikipedia and can be tagged for a move to Commons, but haven't yet been moved. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but under a name that restricts the scope to images. 12:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
These are PD in the US because they were published before 1923 but not PD in Germany, the source country, because the photographer did not die more than 70 years ago. Commons has a policy that images published before 1923 outside of the US must be PD in the country of origin. Images cannot be uploaded to a User page. All images must have their own page. In addition they are used in an image gallery in a main space article. A user page would not be appropriate. It is my understanding that the Wikipedia is in the US so if the images are PD in the US, its OK for them to be used in Wikipedia articles. Someone from the EU could not legally upload the images however. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is a name for this category that would be acceptable? I used used one that is routinely acceptable for Commons, but apparently it is not acceptable on the English Wikipedia. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This name is perfectly acceptable and the category should be kept as is. There is no need to rename a category to imply that it can only contain a particular namespace (a faintly ridiculous idea, by someone who is evidently unfamiliar with mediawiki). Andy Dingley (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely missing the point. This is not an "other stuff exists" argument it's a "that's how the category structure is organized everywhere else" argument. CfD is very much about ensuring consistency throughout the project. Look around and you'll see that a) categories intended to hold images are named accordingly and b) eponymous categories are avoided when there aren't articles that allow room for growth. In fact, look through the CfD archives and you'll find that time and again, eponymous categories have been deleted along those lines (and in line with the relevant guideline). Pichpich (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Images of Maude Fay is just as eponymous as Category:Maude Fay alone. The only difference is a somewhat tautological, and for Mediawiki, unworkable, attempt to imply a restriction to its members being from a single namespace. This is impractical, but mostly it's pointless. If we have content for Maude Fay, then categorize it. If we have images for Maude Fay, categorize them. If another article was to present itself, then we categorize that identically. It is an inappropriate restriction to build in a future limitation for a container, especially when there is so little use for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categories that hold only images are called Category:Images of Foo. You may not like it but it's the overwhelming consensus (see WP:OC#EPONYMOUS). This category, as the creator quite clearly explains above, is intended to hold images, not articles. Pichpich (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds to me like I should create Category:Images of Maude Fay and make it a subcategory of Category:Images of musicians. This does not sound unreasonable to me. I appreciate all the help and information. I've never had to create a category like this one previously so I was unfamiliar with what I should do. Once that is done, we can go ahead and delete this category. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2011 (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:Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose one of the main reasons for categories is for readers to be able to find related articles they may be interested in. If I'm interested in Horatio Nelson but have little knowledge about him I'm very unlikely to know to search for Category:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson. Leave it be, there is enough over catgeorisation on Wikipedia as it is. NtheP (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are a substantial number of articles, which the nominator failed to count because they ignored the two sub-categories. Was this an undisclosed script operation? It's a common error on a number of these careless nominations.
After deletion, would the nominator care to suggest an appropriate structure other than this category, in order to provide a container for the two "Works of" sub-categories? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The "no articles" argument doesn't make sense given the subcategories. Nevertheless, I don't think an eponymous category is necessary in this case and I would prefer to simply link the two subcategories through a {{catseealso}}. Pichpich (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that both nominator and supporter would take a bit more interest in projects like DBpedia, before they seem so keen to damage to knowledge structure it relies upon. {{catseealso}} is a very poor substitute for semantic structure. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change the guideline and overturn years of consensus on eponymous categories, then please propose that at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. Pichpich (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? Where? This is exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia. I doubt most of the folk voting on iterary categories here have much knowledge of the subject or are on any of the relevant projects.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus established and described at Wikipedia:Overcategorization, specifically the section on eponymous category. Nobody here is passing judgment on the importance or talent of this or that author. These are not under consideration when determining whether an eponymous category should exist or not. You'll notice the absence (and please don't go out and create them) of Category:Italo Calvino, Category:Truman Capote, Category:Raymond_Chandler, Category:Russell Banks, Category:Albert Camus to name a few of my favourite. On the other hand, the existence of Category:Sylvia Plath and Category:Mikhail Bulgakov is not an indication that Plath or Bulgakov are more important writers than the previous five. These categories exist to hold articles that can't be placed in the more typical "Works of X" categories for writers. In the case of Bulgakov, two museums and one particularly celebrated character as well as a few images that cannot be moved to Commons for copyright technicalities. I really invite you to browse Category:Works by author and see that the vast majority of authors do not have an eponymous category. The same is true for actors and musicians. This is not because nobody ever thought of creating them. Many were, only to be deleted time and again as an undesirable layer of categorization. Exceptions are made when there's no other sensible choice. Pichpich (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - nominator does not understand importance of subcat. Also one of the most notable English writers of the 19th century.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Completely unnecessary. The two subcategories can easily be linked through Template:Catrel and after that there's no reason for the category. Just because someone was "one of the most notable XX" does not mean that they somehow have "earned" a category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be amazed if you'd ever heard of Thackeray before, but you seem prepared to pass judgement on the matter.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to attack other users, especially when you clearly know little about the user you are commenting on. The point is that your or my personal and subjective assessment of his importance plays little to no role in deciding whether a category is appropriate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This should have been listed on the literature/novels project, please do so forthwith.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mr. Thackeray is not a "literary character" he is an author. The rules on categories for authors is only create them if there is a substantial set of articles related to them other than their works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2011 (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. Just doesn't seem like enough there. An "Inventions of" category might make more sense.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles and a redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So write more articles. Plenty of scope for them, he's a major figure in engineering history. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CAT notes that "there is no limit on the size of categories". So, what's the problem? -- EdJogg (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, that sentence is clearly intended as "there is no upper limit on the size". For an argument against small categories, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Pichpich (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, true. One of the reasons for mentioning it is I knew someone would be able to put me right!
BUT, while WP:OC#SMALL says "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members...", there is certainly scope for more articles in this category.
On the other hand, this cat falls foul of WP:OC#EPONYMOUS (although that supports the existence of some of the other 'small cat' entries on this page, since it supports eponymous cats that cover sub-cats). -- EdJogg (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards deletion because I don't think the scope of the category is entirely clear. And I'm not entirely convinced that there's room for growth. Trevithick is of course a major figure in engineering history but it wouldn't be reasonable to put, say, steam engine in the category. So we'd mostly be left with a category including a bunch of redirects which isn't a great idea. Pichpich (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At risk of getting mauled by the toothless tiger of WP:WQA, if you don't know who Trevithick is, then please read the convenient article we have on him (unless we're planning to delete that too). He had a small involvement with steam engines, far more with steam locomotives. There are at least half-a-dozen individual locomotives that belong in this category and can easily have articles with clearly sourced notability (so far we have just one). Every one of Trevithick's locomotives is historically significant, although sourcing is too difficult for us to cover all of them. There are at least two other important inventions directly attributable to him, the Cornish boiler (dismissed as a mere redirect and apparently thus unimportant by the nominator) and Simple expansion steam engine (still unfinished, owing to me wasting time on arguments like this). There are also his several children, of whom I would suggest three warrant their own articles (so far one).
Delete. Eponomous categories are discouraged, and there is no reason to make an exception here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2011 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2011 (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: No articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This category exists as a location for images of works by this artist, without it people can't find them. We can't upload them to Commons yet as he died less than 70 years ago, so for time being this category is the only place to put them. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename such that the name clearly indicates that this is an images category. Pichpich (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2011 (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: Only one article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This category exists as a location for images of works by this artist, without it people can't find them. We can't upload them to Commons yet as he died less than 70 years ago, so for time being this category is the only place to put them. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles and a large sub-category tree too. If we deleted this, we'd then have an orphaned category for works. Would the nominator suggest adding that incongrously to the "artists" tree? Or would we simply re-create the artist category, so as to give a consistent structure with other artists?
I also find this bulk tagging of categories for deletion on the basis of "only two articles" to be simplistic and poorly done. Poorly done because it has counted categories on major artists as "only two articles", ignoring their category children too. Simplistic because it's a scatter-gun approach to find ways to exercise some wiki pseudo admin tasks and feel a false satisfaction for "Doing Adminny Stuff and making the wiki better"; rather than any thought about the significance of these subjects, or the idea of structuring the best encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subcats What is the purpose of these container categories? Why can't Category:Works of X simply be in its other parents instead of an eponymous category for the artist? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of these subcategories is filing and organisation.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator does not understand importance of subcat.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary level of categorization. There's no point in having a category whose sole purpose is to hold Category:Botticelli paintings (which should be renamed but that's another debate). This is a pretty clear-cut case of overcategorization through eponymous category (See WP:OC). Pichpich (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2011 (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: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:42, 2 May 2011 (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:Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. If renamed, subcat.s can be speedy renamed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ambiguous category names are problems, while it isn't for articles. There's several uses for Napolean that can end up in this category, by indiscriminate categorization, if it is renamed. 65.93.12.8 (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there are other notable Napoleons, e.g. Napoleon III.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to avoid ambiguity.--Lenticel(talk) 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization. An eponymous category is not necessary for a single article (not counting the main one). Pichpich (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2011 (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: No articles, three pieces of media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This category exists as a location for works of art by him so people can find them. They cannot be uploaded to Commons due to copyright, so this is the only place for them. It is anticipated that many images will be added to this category in time. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One article, one subcat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a major novelist. Our common practice for such is to have separate categories for the author and their works. If we delete the author category, is the nominator suggesting that we delete the works category too? That we upmerge the works category into the author cat and delete it? Or how else are we supposed to appropriately link these two distint cats, as we do for other authors, without either having this cat, or by mis-categorising the works cat directly under "French authors"? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, major novelist (and one who would deserve a better article). However, an eponymous category doesn't seem warranted. Note that this is the norm rather than the exception in Category:Works by author. The 'Works' category stays of course and the nominator never suggested otherwise. Pichpich (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator does not understand importance of subcat.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for this extra level of categorization. Pichpich (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subcat is sufficient. Neutralitytalk 04:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary level of categorization. The subcat is sufficient. Pichpich (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subcat is sufficient. Neutralitytalk 04:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find it interesting that the same three people are voting for Justin's deletion proposals. --MacRusgail (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's really not much different than a bundle nom. Obviously, the same reasoning is being applied to each nomination. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some of those three users find it interesting that the same one user is voting against the deletion proposals. Who cares? Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Starcheerspeaknewslostwars is right about these being essentially bundle noms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2011 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 11. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)