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:Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Doesnt' add anything. Has no other category like it. —GoldRingChip 18:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to all parents. There is no point in having a category that based on current article practices will only have two articles. If we come to a point where we have articles on specific congressional district elections in specific years than maybe this would be a logical category, but we are not at that point yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge agree with JPL. Pichpich (talk) 02:23, 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:Torch bearers at the 2012 Summer Olympics[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. No prejudice against creating a list. The BushrangerOne ping only 00:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defnining characteristic for any of the articles in this category. Per the guidance - "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". A sample check of Muse, Jayne Torvill, Jedward and Tracey Emin will confirm that none of these are known primarily for being a torch bearer. Lugnuts (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a trivial footnote in a person's career, highly unlikely to be mentioned in a newspaper obituary. Oculi (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a bit ironic that some people were picked for their notability, some for their anonymity, and at least one because he looked good when he ran. The last is possibly the only person famous for carrying the torch, so I would have to agree that this isn't defining, and that lists for each of the torch runs are more appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the type of thing that works better in a list. A category will always be a small subset, the list is an acheivable thing, and the participation in the run for most people in neither notable nor defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this works best as a list. Pichpich (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 100s of local people carried the torch, and most are NN. This is a "Performace by Performer" category, which we do not allow. Perhpas Listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The category was inspired by a discussion here, but I won't lose any sleep if ti goes. I do, however, believe the information itself would be useful and interesting. Wasn't sure whether a list or category was the best solution, but am happy with a list as that has more potential. I've copied it to my userspace and will work on it over the coming days. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:56, 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.
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: I started cleaning user namespace pages out of this category but now I think the whole category should be deleted. It is unclear whether it should be project or content material (it should not really be both). Also, this is the sort of things that Commons if useful for. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Alan. Categorization of image galleries is just the type of thing that we have Commons for. -- Ϫ 05:29, 7 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:Arrested Development (TV series) episodes[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I can see the nominator's point, the standard practice is that subcategories should include the full name of the main category of the tree, including disambiguators. The WP:OTHERSTUFF, in fact, should probably be nominated for renaming to the disambiguated form. - The BushrangerOne ping only 06:55, 6 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:Kenoe doesn't have an article — deleted earlier this year for failing BLP. Precedent is that a.) "albums produced by X" shouldn't exist unless X has solo productions, which Kenoe does not; and b.) we don't categorize by producer if the producer doesn't have an article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TPH points out, there is precedent against this. Pichpich (talk) 02:25, 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.
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.
Upmerge all, excpet the last, whose sole member is not an award. Note these are categories for awards, not award winners. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 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.
