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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Manocan bridge players to Category:Monagesque bridge players Category:Monegasque bridge players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. From misspelling (?) to correct demonym for Monaco Yngvadottir (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions: Is Monagesque a French language word? If so, does it have an English language counterpart? Interestingly, Monacan people is already a Wiki article. I would support a correction to the category naming provided it is of the English language. Newwhist (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Monacan people refers to an Indian tribe in USA. WP has Category:Monegasque people (which I have added as a further parent). I believe this to be the usual demonym in English, rather than Monacan, despite it being a French word. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, having changed the spelling to Monegasque. – Fayenatic London 16:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, given that Monegasque is widely accepted in the categorization of Wiki articles pertaining to the people of Monoco. Newwhist (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, appears to be a straightforward decision at this point in time. — Cirt (talk) 01:45, 29 April 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: Rename/Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Scenic drives to Category:Scenic routes
• Propose merging Category:Tourist highways to Category:Scenic routes

Nominator's rationale: Rename and merge. The main article is Scenic route, and Tourist highway redirects to it. I do not think that all roads called "tourist highways" are limited-access roads (see nomination below), but even if they were I do not see any benefit from subdividing this category according to access. – Fayenatic London 20:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. What are the inclusion criteria for these categories? It sounds highly WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some are official, others are subjective. By all means challenge the contents later; but they belong together, if they belong at all. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 26 April 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. – Fayenatic London 19:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Highways to Category:Roads Category:Limited-access roads
• Propose merging Category:Highways by country to Category:Limited-access roads by country‎
• Propose merging Category:Expressways to Category:Limited-access roads by country‎
• Propose renaming Category:Highways by country subdivision to Category:Limited-access roads by country subdivision
• Propose merging Category:State highways to Category:Limited-access roads by country subdivision

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The page Highway says the word just means road, as opposed to waterway. Connecting the categories in different countries is overcategorisation by shared name. – Fayenatic London 17:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Themain article Highway indicates that in America these are not synonyms. I appreciate that this is a premature comment, which the nom is in the process of being created. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not making any change to the national sub-categories for highways; each "category:Highways in Foo" will remain as a sub-cat of Roads in Foo. This proposal just stops pretending that "highway" means the same thing in each country. "Limited-access roads by country" includes motorways, expressways, autobahns etc and a few highways, and should have them all. The page Expressway redirects to Limited-access road. – Fayenatic London 18:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction: Expressways did redirect to Limited-access road, but now goes to Expressway which is a disambiguation page for Limited-access road, Controlled-access highway and a fictional meaning. – Fayenatic London 16:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, all highways are not limited access roads. Some limited access roads are called highways, some are called toll roads, some are called expressways. The term is pretty general in use in the USA. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• do not change no case is made that this change would be correct for the many countries involved. This would only confuse, not help, the WP reader Hmains (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not all highways are expressways, therefore merging highway to limited-access roadway is incorrect and wrong. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Highways is right. Shyamsunder (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In that case, I propose to withdraw, and revert to my original proposal to merge to Category:Roads and Category:Roads by country. Expressways, however, should still be merged to limited-access roads. Any objections? – Fayenatic London 16:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note it may make sense to merge Expressways into limited access roads, but highways really should not be merged into Roads, it should remain a sub-category. BTW, the CFR link on the Highways by country category doesn't go to the right section. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I've fixed that link now. But why do you think a global category for Highways should remain? What consistent global meaning does it have? in each country, it either means Roads, Limited-access roads or Category:Controlled-access highways. Outside each national context, it's just a shared name. Articles such as Highway beautification, Highway engineering and Unsigned highway are about roads generally, not just "big highways". – Fayenatic London 19:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose neither highways nor expressways are limited access roads in California and probably much of the US (see, e.g., Oregon Expressway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, please correct the page Expressway. I was not going to get rid of Category:Expressways in the United States, but what is its purpose? Is that too merely categorisation by shared name? – Fayenatic London 18:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that we Americans use these terms in so many different ways and not logically, of course. There are roads that are called highways that are really roads, so there is a lot of confusion. What I would suggest:

1. Leave the above categories as they were. Create a "Expressways by country" category, and make it a sub-category of "limited access roads by country". I really think you need to leave the category names as is, because in the U.S., one does not hear the term "limited access" used that often. It may be more a UK or European term. This is the same problem that I've found in sorting out the "Hospitality companies" and "Hotel and leisure companies" categories. So we just have to find a way for them to exist together. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Also, add a "State highways by country" category. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You haven't explained what US highways have in common with roads that are called "highways" in other countries. WP:OC#SHAREDNAME says we should not categorise just by name. Why do you want Category:Expressways by country? There is no need for Category:Autobahns by country or Category:Motorways by country, because Category:Controlled-access highways by country gathers them together whatever they are called. Category:Limited-access roads by country likewise gathers roads which have an intermediate status, by whatever name. In some countries, controlled-access highways are called expressways, but they are called Category:Motorways in Croatia, whereas Category:Expressways in Croatia are limited-access roads and should therefore not be categorised with top-speed expressways in other countries. – Fayenatic London 20:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying with the above type of categorization, and I'm fine with it; however, I think if you delete the Highways, Expressways or State Highways categories and change them to "Limited Access", I think someone in the future (an American) will probably re-create those categories, because the average person never calls them "limited access" or "controlled access". Those types of terms would only be used by civil engineers in the various federal, state and local Depts. of Transportation. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, seems to be some concern this is not universally applicable. — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 29 April 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:  Relisted at 2013 MAY 27 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:De la Pole family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category is not about a single family, but at least two. I had a great deal of difficulty in removing genealogical rubbish that made a Hull merchant a descendant of the Princes of Powys (the equivalent of WP:OR). De la Pole means of the Pole (or pool). For the family descended from the Princes of Powys, this refers to Welshpool; for the Hull merchants, an insignificant place near there. These family categories are a potential menace: they are bringing people together by shared surname, which is a variety of overcategorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If an article is placed in the wrong category, it is time to clean up the category. Not to delete it and leave all relevant articles untraceable. Dimadick (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This arbitrary grouping of unconnected families that happen to have the same name is miscategorization, and needs to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 27 April 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Candidates in British Columbia provincial elections (2013) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category is being used to group everybody who has a Wikipedia article and is a candidate in the British Columbia general election, 2013, even though the vast majority of them are incumbent MLAs running for re-election. This type of categorization is simply not done on Wikipedia — "candidate" categories are only for people who were not elected to the legislature and thus aren't already filed in an appropriate MLAs category, and any candidate who isn't already a sitting member of the legislature still has to meet another notability guideline anyway, meaning that the vast majority of unelected candidates don't get articles at all. In this case, that would leave just six people in this category once the sitting MLAs are removed, and five of those six outliers are still in the more general Category:Candidates in British Columbia provincial elections (which isn't large enough to need a size splitout) alongside this one. And since British Columbia general election, 2013 already contains a table of the candidates for all parties which will be updated with vote totals and winner tags once the election is over, all of the people in question are already linked from that article and thus the category isn't needed anyway.

For the record, the exact same thing was tried in 2011 for both the Yukon election and the Ontario election and was deleted in both cases for the same reasons detailed here, yet the exact same user who started those started this one too. Delete (but make sure Suzanne Anton is added to Category:Candidates in British Columbia provincial elections in the process.) Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question:What is the rationale for this deletion nomination? All I can gather from the above is:

• "This type of categorization is simply not done on Wikipedia"
• "all of the people in question are already linked from that article and thus the category isn't needed anyway"
• "the exact same thing was tried in 2011 for both the Yukon election and the Ontario election and was deleted in both cases for the same reasons" Ottawahitech (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The existence of the category will encourage the creation of articles on all candidates. However, WP:POLITICIAN indicates that candidates remain NN until elected (unless notable for other reasons). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this sort of collection of names is better done through article/lists such as British Columbia general election, 2009, not via a category. If the idea behind this category proliferated, long-term politicians would be linked to dozens of them. PKT(alk) 18:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Bearcat.Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivial/non-defining. Being a candidate is not in itself enough for notability, and it is likewise not enough for categorization. Resolute 14:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article is a better place to list candidates. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:03, 24 April 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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Science fiction Westerns to Category:Science fiction Western films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with all the other sub-categories of Category:Western films by genre and Category:Science fiction films by genre. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose not everything in this category is films. If you had examined some of the contents, you'd see that. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment when this category was created it was not placed into the film tree, at some later point, it was incorrectly moved into the film tree. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment heirarchy corrected. Reverting to categorization prior to the move into film categories -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose contains several TV episodes as well as films eg A Town Called Mercy, The Gunfighters, A Fistful of Datas, Spectre of the Gun. They could be split into Science fiction Western television episodes if necessary but they probably don't need to be as the category is moderately sized. Tim! (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This category is about the combinations of these genres in various mediums, not about films alone. The Dark Tower is a literary series, Deadlands is a roleplaying game, several of the entries in the "Space Westerns" subgenre are television series (such as The Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers and BraveStarr), the Weird West subgenre includes comic books (such as Jonah Hex). Dimadick (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the change would exclude valuable content. Also, A Town Called Mercy, and A Fistful of Datas, are great examples as cited by Tim! (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 01:47, 29 April 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Manchester, Kentucky to Category:People from Clay County, Kentucky

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with only 2 entries ...William 12:13, 23 April 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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Needles, California to Category:People from San Bernardino County, California

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has 3 entries ...William 12:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Needles is unique in the county. It's geographically removed from San Bernardino and the other population centers of the county's Inland Empire area by 200+ miles. Lumping former/current residents with the rest of the country may not work. Small population, but potential for growth. Scanlan (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree that there is some good potential for growth here in this particular case. — Cirt (talk) 01:48, 29 April 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:New Zealand House of Representatives accredited news organisations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Listify and Delete. Seems like the sort of thing better handled by a list article - this is categorisation by an obscure common feature. I can't see any other categories for news agencies by accreditation anywhere. Grutness...wha? 10:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Listified at House of Representatives of New Zealand#Accredited news organisations Grutness...wha? 22:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per nominator's rationale. Schwede66 22:36, 27 April 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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Populated places in Chilcotin (region) to Category:Populated places in the Chilcotin

• Nominator's rationale: IMHO this is an instance where the simpler category name is unambiguous and does not need the qualifier in brackets, even though it will then not match the main article. This was first raised by Skookum1 at the Speedy page; it did not meet the Speedy criteria, so I am pasting a copy of his rationale below. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Populated places in Chilcotin (region) to Category:Populated places in the Chilcotin - I know this was recently speedied because of parent cat speedy, but the proper usage is "the Chilcotin" as in "the Okanagan" and "the Cariboo" (which have equivalent populated places cats); "(region)" dab kinda unnecessary despite current title of main article Chilcotin (region). Skookum1 (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are precedents such as Category:Populated places in the Similkameen‎ and Category:Populated places in the South Okanagan. – Fayenatic London 08:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thank you for renominating this......as noted elsewhere in our discussions, the main article could be the Chilcotin page which is a disambiguation and concerns only related topics; Chilcotin (region) was an attempt at re-naming what had been Chilcotin District which I myself originally created in my early Wikipedia days when I gave no thought to caps and such; the old category name Category:Chilcotin Country is based on a regular appellation "country" used for many of BC's regions, including this one....though is only citable, as far as I can find, with lower-case "country"; that got changed by someone via speedy to Category:Chilcotin District which is unworkable because of hte other meanings of capital-D "District" in British Columbia. This is a large region and there are various possible subcats Category:Lakes in the Chilcotin, Category:Indigenous communities in the Chilcotin (not all are Indian Reserves and so would not wind up in Category:First Nations reserves in British Columbia or any regional subcat by that designation), Category:Mountains in the Chilcotin and so on.....standalone "Chilcotin" is sometimes heard from old-timers as in "I was up in Chilcotin" but like "Yukon" the tendency and most common usage is with a "the".Skookum1 (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've been pondering changing Chilcotin (region) to Chilcotin region, though that still doesn't affect the need for the "the" in subcats as explained, an in those subcats the question remains whether "region" needs to be added; in BC idiom it doesn't but in a globalized sense those other two subcats and any like them could be Category:Populated places in the Cariboo region for example; there are two marine/coastal region cats, both made by me Category:Queen Charlotte Strait region and Category:Quatsino Sound region which were so named for clarity so they wouldn't just be about the water body itself (which is problematic already with Category:Puget Sound. Cariboo which is a neighbouring region's article (and category) might also better be retitled Cariboo region. In some BC-region cases like Category:Bulkley Valley or Category:Slocan Valley and the like the "region" isn't needed. I wish more editors who know BC were around to comment here, only a very few are active right now, at least so far as geographic topics are concerned.Skookum1 (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've changed the main article to Chilcotin region to expedite this; when that phrase occurs, it doesn't have/need the brackets; I'd rather this be Category:Chilcotin but because of the complications of the Chilcotin dab page and the RM issue re the aboriginal people and any "FOO people" category that may result if that is not resolved, "Chilcotin region" will have to do for now. "People from the Chilcotin" and "Chilcotin people" (if that's the result of the RM not going through as it should) are going to be about two different subjects.Skookum1 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cleveland Cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This was at speedy for a rename, but I question the need for this. After removing those that did not mention Cleveland or why it is defining for the city's cuisine, we are left with 3 articles. If we look at one of those, City chicken it is mentioned as being eaten in at least 8 cities, so do we categorize this in each of those cities? I think that deletion is the better direction here. I'll also point out that this has Category:Cuisine of the Midwestern United States and Category:Cuisine of the Northeastern United States as parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From speedy nomination.

• Category:Cleveland Cuisine to Category:Cuisine of Cleveland, Ohio – C2B per Category:Cleveland, Ohio and other city subcategories of Category:Cuisine of the Midwestern United States Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are going to keep, then the proposed rename is OK. However is there any need to keep a city category in this case? I think this needs a full CfD for deletion. Most entries were removed since they don't mention the city. And when you have articles like kielbasa and rigatoni which are ethnic dishes, how can they be defining for a city? If we allowed this, how many foods would be in NYC or Chicago or LA or... Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've no problem if you want to pre-empt the speedy rename with a deletion nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I doubt there is much to categorise here. Polish boy may qualify, but otherwise, we have Pittsburgh mock chicken and an Italian dish. Some items may need recategorising in a partial upmerge. I would suggest a mass merger of similar city cuisine categories to Category:Cuisine of the Midwestern United States, preferably after adding appropriate target categories. The fact that a dish may be eaten in a city is not a reason for categorisation: this is the objection in performance by performer categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In scanning some of the other city categories, I was also wondering about the need for these. I guess if this one goes, the others will need to follow. We could start cleaning up those now. But would that be considered as emptying out of process? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but also confused as to why the 2nd word in this category was capitalized. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There's Cleveland cuisine? Is this chili dogs? Anyway, I don't think we should categorize foods by a cuisine unless they are uniquely and definitely identified with that cuisine, and I don't think there is enough of a concept of "Cleveland cuisine" that an article could even be written on it. So there's simply not enough content or user demand to support a category. --Lquilter (talk) 14:47, 29 April 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.