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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've researched this band a lot and little, if anything, has been or can be said about the albums in and of themselves that would give them full articles. That's why I merged them into one page: Earthless discography, which is essentially the same thing as this category only a lot more helpful. The other categories on the redirect pages can stay, but this category is now worthless in the long run. LazyBastardGuy 23:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. A category consisting solely of redirects to one page is no use to navigation, which is the main purpose of categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – these are valid redirects, each pointing to a multi-line segment of Earthless discography, and should be categorised by 'defining characteristics', exactly as a stand-alone article would be. (If one is navigating in category:Albums by artist, Category:Earthless albums is an essential sign-post.) Oculi (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Oculi: The notion that redirects should be categorised by the same principles as articles would represent a radical change in categorisation practice. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The redirects do have other categories on them, but I'm trying to get one that only includes these redirects removed. If someone found their way to the redirects from the discography article and then to the artist category, it would lead them in a circle. I would advocate keeping it if the redirects themselves had any potential as full articles, which as I noted they do not. LazyBastardGuy 16:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion, the discussion makes clear why we don't need/want this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2013 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category consists entirely of redirect. Since there is no obvious navigational route from an article to a redirect targetted at it, this category is useful for navigation only in one direction. That function is better performed by a list, which already exists at The Secret Storm#Characters. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, content-based category is almost inaccessible by readers and doesn't help anyone. LazyBastardGuy 23:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- completely pointless as all the redirects are (presumably) to the article on the soap. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2013 (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:Merge. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category, fails WP:SMALLCAT because it is not part of a series and has little prospect of expansion. No need to keep it split out from its only parent. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 19 December 2013 (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:Merge, retain category redirect. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:34, 29 December 2013 (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:Court system of Balochistan, Pakistan[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: These are one-article categories that should be merged into the main parent category (of the articles). If the need arises, they could easily be recreated. Green Giant (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2013 (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:NO CONSENSUS. I read the discussion after the original re-list as more illuminating than before it. It seems that the suggested merge would not provide a proper outcome, and I of course note the AfD keep, also. Therefore, overall, there is not a stable opinion that this should be deleted or merged. -Splash - tk 21:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a prone to addition of unsourced information. Ethnicity must be supported by reliable sources. Most of the articles in this category do not have any information or source on ethnicity and categories have been added based on common sense or surname.
Categorization of people based on their religion+ethnicity is unnecessary (I am expecting some OSE arguments here, to answer that, some of those categories may be nominated for discussion too). Tito☸Dutta 21:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prone to addition of unsourced information can't be a criterion for deletion. If so, then the entire Wikipedia is prone to addition of unsourced information. However, I do agree that ethnicity should be supported by reliable sources. In this case, if a person is of Bengali ancestry and following Hinduism, as evident from the article content (maybe the infobox can provide info at a glance), then adding this category should be OK. If there is any doubt just remove the category and that should be it. Deletion of the category itself doesn't make any sense. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- With the great majority of the inhabitants of West Bengal being Hindus, is this really a notable characteristic? With Bengalis of other religions, it might be. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bengali Hindus constitute less than a third of the total Bengali speaking population of the world, i.e. they are minority among the total Bengali speaking world. Bengali Hindus constitute less than a tenth of the population both in India and Bangladesh, making them linguistic and religious minorities in respective countries. Within India, Bengali Hindus are not only limited to West Bengal, they form a fifth and three fourth of the populations in Assam and Tripura respectively. In West Bengal, Bengali Hindus constitute around two third of the population. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Bengali people notes that 60% of Bengali people are Muslims and 40% are Hindus, with a small minority of Buddhists and Christians. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Bengali people does not provide any citation for the precise data that they have produced. Meanwhile I found that about.com says that 70% of Bengali people are Muslims and 30% are Hindus. Please note that the entire Hindu population of West Bengal is not Bengali speaking. There is a significant Hindi speaking and Nepali speaking Hindu population in West Bengal. Also if you look at the census data of West Bengal and Bangladesh you will find that the Muslim percentage is rising in both places. BengaliHindu (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I very strongly oppose subdividing religion by ethnicity, but there may be merit to subdividing certain ethnicities by religion iff the intersections are unique topics of academic interest. I would be curious to see whether that is the case. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The intersection of religion and ethnicity should only be categorized in rare cases. I do not think this meets the high threshold for that. We might have Category:Bangladeshi Hindus though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, largely because there's a massive number of people who would fit into this category. Religion-based categorisations aren't generally helpful unless they're geographic splits of larger groups, e.g. Category:American Presbyterians or Category:American Hindus, or unless they're specifically related to the religion, e.g. subdividing Jews into Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews, etc. This isn't either one of them, and it's not one of those rare situations that deserve an exception. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There is a weak consensus here against categorising people by this intersection of ethnicity and religion. However, none of the participants in this discussion offered any reason to stop categorising these people either as Hindu, or as Bengali. I therefore propose to close this discussion as a merge to both parent categories, i.e. Category:Hindus and Category:Bengali people. If anyone has any objection to this merger, and would prefer straihghtforward deletion, please explain why.
CommentBengali people are not a homogeneous group by any means, other than that they speak Bengali. The Bengali people are divided by religion, culture, customs, society and polity. It is not that the Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims are divided only by religion. The customs, culture, social structure and even the spoken language varies greatly between the Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims. Again, majority of the Bengali Hindus reside in India and majority of the Bengali Muslims reside in Bangladesh. In 1947, the Bengali Hindu leadership made a conscious decision not to join the Bengali Muslims in East Pakistan, the precursor of present day Bangladesh. Again, the Hindus too are not a homogeneous group. While the language, culture and customs vary from region to region, it greatly differs when it comes to Bengali Hindus. The social law of Bengali Hindus is different from the rest of the Hindus. The food habit too is different. While most Hindus are vegetarians (at least the Brahmins), the Bengali Hindus are non-vegetarian in their food habit (Brahmins as well as non-Brahmins). All these makes the Bengali Hindus a distinct group, which justifies a separate category for the Bengali Hindus. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bengali Hindu categoryBrownHairedGirl would usually be correct in deleting the intersection category and keeping separate tags for "Bengali people" and "Hindus", but in this special case, she made this decision based on lack of information. Bengali Hindus are asserted to be a distinct group of people who are not merely people who are both Bengali and Hindu; in fact, a person who is Bengali and a Hindu may not be a Bengali Hindu. This term has a specific meaning. There is a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bengali_Hindus; if this passes then definitely this category should be kept longer. It will be a real pain to maintain because it is not obvious who is a Bengali Hindu. For those who need more context, read about the Partition of India to understand how and when the designation of Bengali Hindu became an important identity. Bengalis are among the most academically inclined people in the world and many books and papers have been published about this identity. I confirm that both this category and the Wikipedia article are problematic for many reasons, but this is a useful technical designation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should take very great care before adopting BHG's reductionist suggestion to merge to both parents. Now, I don't know about these things but, as a example of possible problems, Richard Gere is a Tibetan Buddhist. He may indeed be a Buddhist (he is categorised as such) but he isn't Tibetan. Thincat (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bengali Hindu category As per Blue Rasberry. Bengal was Partitioned on religious lines principally Bengali Hindu and Bengali Muslim which is a very major event in Indian history namely Partition of Bengal (1905) and Partition of Bengal (1947) into what is now Bangladesh and West Bengal part of India and even the borders were drawn on religious lines.It became a very important after 1905 when it was first partitioned.This categorization is important in this context.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - unnecessary, categories like Category:Bengali people, Category:Bangladeshi Hindus, Category:Indian Hindus should suffice. Moreover, I fail to see any reliable source that says Bengali Hindus are ethnically distinct from Bengali Muslims, Buddhists or Christians. Besides, I fail to understand the logic behind using Partition of India as a reason to distinct the Bengali Hindus from Bengali adherents of other religions. Despite the partition, there are many Bengali Hindus in living Bangladesh as well as many Bengali Muslims living in West Bengal, going through the same cultural and social life as their other fellow countrymen, which shows they are ethnically same. Also, the partition had the same effect on the Punjab region as that of Bengal, yet we don't see any categories like Category:Punjabi Sikhs, Category:Punjabi Muslims or Category:Punjabi Hindus. --Zayeem(talk) 15:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On 25 December 2013 the article Bengali Hindus passed its deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bengali Hindus. The closers rationale was that sources were presented to establish that claim that "Bengali Hindus" are a distinct group, and no one in the discussion challenged the validity of those sources. I feel that this discussion adds to the supporting evidence for keeping this category. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the AfD discussion, and that it is not redundant. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2014 (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:Oregon politicians who changed parties[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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The frequency with which politicians change party varies hugely by country. In some countries (e.g. Israel) the parties in parliament frequently merge or split, and in other countries individual politicians often change parties.
However, changes of party allegiance are not a simple matter. There is a big difference between a party leader abandoning both leadership and party (e.g. Michael O'Leary) and someone changing allegiance after they have left parliament (e.g. Brian Sedgemore); grouping them together is almost misleading, or those who switched parties before they ever held public office.
No opinion on deletion but do believe that the cases which BrownHairedGirl presents are analogous and the precedent established in those cases was to delete. Unless there is are new arguments to break from precedent and past consensus then I would expect this category to be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is a bad idea for a category scheme. It's a triple intersection to boot - state + job + something special you did during that job. Lists are much better way to capture the nuance here, categories are simply too blunt a tool.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changing political parties is fairly common in the US. I think what they are going for is more like "Oregon politicians who changed party after first getting elected office", but even this is not really defining or rare enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2013 (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: For reference, Religious institute (Catholic) explains why orders are a subset of religious institutes. "order" and "institute" are often used as synonyms but the former is a colloquialism. Elizium23 (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Canonical term is "Religious Institute" but since it is so common to use religious "order", I think it should be a redirect. ~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 07:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The coloquialism is so widespread that I think COMMONNAME comes into play. If someone convinces me that is a regional English variation, I would change my opinion though.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from 2013 November 30 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Strong Oppose A very technical term, far too little-known to use in a category name. People will think of academic institutes etc. This has only recently become the correct term, and is not recognised even by most Catholics. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2013 (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 category is functionally pointless after the reduction of character articles. There are only three who don't fit into it, so it should just made into a single category. TTN (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from 2013 November 29 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Merge -- We should not need more than one category for most fictional franchises. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. The series is at its last arc so I don't think any new shinigamis will be introduced in the future.--Lenticel(talk) 02:23, 25 December 2013 (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:Delete. Overly broad inchoate category capturing everything from lawmen who killed in the line of duty to characters who accidentally caused a death to fictional demons. Unlike its sub-categories, which are much more focused and can for the most part be seen as occupational. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now, it's a useful container category. We could create more sub-cats to diffuse however. Have you looked at how it matches to our non-fiction structure?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First recategorize contents in subcats for anyone who fits, then purge, then merge to Category:Fictional characters by behavioral attribute. I concur that "killers" is rather vague, and a cannibal and an assassin have little in common (also, perhaps other people killed the food and the cannibals just ate it?) But I hope someone is willing to at least clean the category first and diffuse it to subcats as relevant, as otherwise potentially valid categorization could be missed, then the remnants (e.g. people who just, in the course of some novel, happened to kill someone by accident or in self-defence or ... it ends up being not defining, as sadly, many of our fictional heros still end up killing - wed' have to add Gandalf, and Frodo, and Bilbo, and Yoda, and Chewbacca, and ... I struggle to think of a sci-fi hero who hasn't killed someone.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't see a reason for a container to hold Category:Fictional assassins together with Category:Fictional hunters; throw The Valiant Little Tailor into the mix (it clearly qualifies) and it continues to grow more absurd. Maybe a parent of those who have killed people might make sense, but this is overly broad and in many cases not remotely defining. Seyasirt (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
diffuse / move The act itself suffers from same issue as Fictional drivers or Fictional characters who can fly; nearly anyone can "kill". If I'm attacked in my sleep and wind up killing the assailant, that makes me a "killer" regardless if I'm not at fault. Could diffuse it with categories specific types of killers, like Category:Fictional rampage killers, Category:Fictional suicide bombers, Category:Fictional poisoners, Category:Fictional Typhoid Mary's, or Fictional characters who have committed manslaughter; or evenCharacters convicted of manslaughter. If kept as an profession-specific container, it should be renamed to Category:Fictional characters who are trained killers to better distinguish those who kill professionally (i.e. Wolverine) or as a sadistic "artform" (i.e. Hannibel Lectur), from commonplace amateur/criminal killers. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Purge Useful as a container category, but the individiual articles should be removed or moved to subcats. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete putting various categories that have little in common together (hunters, murderers, special forces, and zombies). Fictional people (and ex-people like zombies) can be morphed into anything - do we need them to be convicted like real people? A useless category in all scores. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from 2013 November 29 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Keep but purge of articles. This is appropriate as a container category, but too vague to be useful for articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is too broad, putting too many unlike things together.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: far too broad to be of any use to anyone.Zythe (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2014 (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:Prize-winners of the International Johann Sebastian Bach Competition[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.
Plain delete as we have a list. We do not allow most award winners categories WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2013 (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:Delete. As with the recently deleted R2-D2 category, all the same reasons for deletion apply. Small category whose only growth potential comes from adding general articles for things in which the character appears. There are plenty of other categories, lists and templates for the contents that aren't problematic. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Images of Princess Leia or something similar, to contain the images, purge the rest. But what do you have against Star Wars??--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything against Star Wars (well, except the prequels) but it's an area that attracts a lot of material that, while hella cool and all, isn't encyclopedic. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the articles are either about or directly related to the character. It may be useful to setup a subcategory of images, but that only adds to the size and scope of this parent. With new films in the Star Wars series on the way, a seemingly never-ending supply of ancillary material and content related to specific characters and a dedicated fan base, the potential for growth seems to be unlimited. Alansohn (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not enough stuff for an eponymous article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to a wider category relating to the Star Wars fictional franchise. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 November 25 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
I will support that for reasons in my vote above. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2013 (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:Withdrawn for alternative strategy of expansion. Green Giant (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories effectively duplicate each other. Green Giant (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William 12:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge -- The subject is wider than the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2013 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 10:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Minimal content. Navigation very simply done through main article Rosenstolz. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:35, 19 December 2013 (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/2013 December 29. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
