< January 20	January 22 >

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Schools on the National Register of Historic Places to Category:School buildings on the National Register of Historic Places

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are many campus buildings that are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places (a college's Old Main, for example, or a dormitory). The current category name either implies that the whole school is on the NRHP, or shouldn't be applied to these buildings and leaves them without any categorical home. Renaming would also build consistency with other categories like Category:Bank buildings on the National Register of Historic Places and Category:Post office buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as the Category:School buildings by year of completion series. -McGhiever (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I suspect that this is simply a case of using the NRHP classifications as the basis for our category naming without considering the ramifications. As a comment, I have been trying to populate the buildings and structure subcategories by year. I don't recall seeing an article where this applied to an institution as opposed to a specific building. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've worked in this area and I have at times wondered if I was using the category correctly: this clears it up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Obvious really. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 22 January 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: result. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Practice research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is not a normal way to subdivide things. I think for now the article is enough and see no reason to create a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 22 January 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. As is often the case with nominations by this editor, the rationale was insufficiently explained. A fuller explanation might have produced a different outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:The New Power Generation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Note There are categories for albums, members, and songs, along with a main article. The subcats are all marked for renaming, but not deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep – too little rationale. Oculi (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There was a recent Cfd that discussed the rule of thumb for minima of eponymous band categories. (Oculi is aware of this rule of thumb and discusses it below, other editors may not be.) We may need a more formal guideline, but there is a rough precedent. Andrewaskew (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too much to ask that the nominator actually refer to this guideline, then? Mangoe (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was my initial point. (See the discussion above the linked rule of thumb.) I linked to it here in order to make these discussions go smoother. Andrewaskew (talk) 22:03, 22 January 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Argentine transport stubs to Category:Argentina transport stubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Argentina is the only country that uses the demonym for the high-level transport category. Replace with the country name for parallelism. Dawynn (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Qetuth (talk) 23:45, 22 January 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 CFD 2013 February 10. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Italian paralympic athletes biography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undersized stub category with an undersized permanent category. Delete stub category, and upmerge template. No prejudice against recreating category once article count permits. Dawynn (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and upmerge per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't understand the problem. If a category is underpopulated is well, it means that many articles are not stub. The objective of Wikipedia is the "destubization". --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the purpose of stub sorting is to help editors find groups of articles that meet their interest. Please review the guidelines for the project. Past experience has shown that stub categories with less than about 60 articles are too finely granulated to be of use. We can keep the template, but upmerge it to more appropriately sized categories. Dawynn (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree to you, but is not necessary to delete the category and the template. At the moment in the Category:Paralympic athletes of Italy there are 17 paralympic athletes, 9 of these are "stub". --Kasper2006 (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The purpose of stub categories is to provide a systematic basis to allow for identification of stub articles by type so that editors can work on their expansion to get them out of the category. The objective of stub categories is to have as few articles as possible. With 9 articles presently in Category:Italian paralympic athletes biography stubs and 17 in Category:Paralympic athletes of Italy, it seems that neither it undersized. Even if the size were a genuine issue, constantly deleting the category when it was deemed too small and waiting for it to be large enough before recreating it, and doing so in a neverending cycle of deletion and recreation of the stub category, hardly seems to be an effective way to deal with these stubs. Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "The objective of stub categories is to have as few articles as possible." is true, but is misrepresenting the issue as the aim is less stubs total, but over-categorising stubs would make the stub system virtually useless - a stub category with one stub does not help an editor find similar articles to expand at all. As Dawynn says, 60-800 is the standard consensus aimed for at this point. I personally would prefer a bit smaller standard, say 40-500, but others in the past have criticised the system as over-categorised as is and think stub cats should aim for 500-2000 or similar (sorry, I cannot find the discussion where I read this argument). In this case, 9 has been previously agreed on as way to small a group to need its own stub category (though a template is fine, and in this case fits WP:WSS's speedy criteria), and (part of) the point about the small parent category I think Dawynn was making is that there is little apparent potential growth (as obviously there should not be more Italian paralympic athlete stubs then there are Italian paralympic athletes). Hence, in this case there should be no danger of the neverending cycle you mention. Although I do notice this category was boldly created without proposal at WP:WSS/P and yet the creator added a template which asks that categories be discussed at that page before creation. --Qetuth (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral -- If not kept it should be merged to Category:Italian sportspeople stubs. Deletion is destructive of useful information. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The number of active Wikipedia editors with interest and expertise in Paralympic sport is quite small. A very, very high proportion of para-athlete articles are currently stubs (I've just fully populated the Category:World record holders in Paralympic athletics from scratch - so believe me, I know). Merging Paralympian bio stubs to Category:Italian sportspeople stubs would not be useful IMHO - would make it much harder for editors with specific interest/expertise to find them. A lot of articles belonging in Category:Paralympic athletes of Italy and Category:Italian paralympic athletes biography stubs have simply not been added yet. A category population issue. Sportygeek (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cat, upmerge template To be clear, deleting a category does not lose useful information with stubs as the stub template is still on the article - it will simply put the article in the current parents (Paralympics stubs and Italian sportspeople stubs) instead of its own category. --Qetuth (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have just tried to find some of the untagged articles mentioned by Sportygeek, and brought it up to 14 before noticing another problem - the tag populating this category is ((Italy-paralympics-bio-stub)). No mention of athletics. Hence I just added it to some archers before noticing the link in the stub tag went to an article for a specific sport. So, there is a mismatch here and at the very least either the category should be renamed to more generic Paralympians or the template should be moved to ((Italy-paralympics-athletics-bio-stub)). This though seems like too fine a division, especially when most of its parents are yet to exist. Instead, I would like to propose the following solution:

Proposal

1. Delete both template and category nominated.
2. Create ((Italy-Paralympic-medalist-stub)) (speedy S2, covers most, if not all, of the articles being discussed as few Paralympians without medals have articles yet).
3. Create ((Paralympic-bio-stub)) and associated category Category:Paralympics biography stubs to hold competitors who don't fot the existing 'medalists' tree, non-competitors such as coaches/executives, and a possible future 'by event' tree.
4. Create ((Paralympic-athletics-bio-stub)) and for now upmerge both this and ((wheelchairrugby-bio-stub)) to the above category.
5. Investigate at WP:WSS/P the possibility of a scheme of national paralympics stub tags and/or categories - some countries have organisations, by year summaries, sporting teams, all in the main Category:Paralympics stubs plus competitors both with and without medals, so I think at least some of those countries could justify a category.

This way, rather than an italian athletics medallist being tagged with Italian athletics stub and para. medallist stub, they would be tagged with Italian medallist stub and para. athletics stub, which has the same information but a clearer category structure and may better suit the goal of grouping stub articles by editor interest. --Qetuth (talk) 12:52, 23 January 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 and purge. Implementing this would require a change to ((WPBannerMeta)), so I will leave a note at Template talk:WPBannerMeta to see if there is any appetite for doing this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It turned out to be quite simple. Implemented in this edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Categories articles to Category:WikiProject Categories pages

Nominator's rationale: I know that WikiProjects usually focus on articles, and i imagine the code places all tagged pages into Category:WikiProject Foo articles, but since this particular project is ONLY about categories, and really focusses on administrative pages/categories, can this category somehow be renamed to reflect this? i also think this category should NOT include any article categories, otherwise, where do we stop? wouldnt ALL categories fall under the scope of this project? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per nom and I endorse all the comments made. Clean it out and use it for category admin only. It is often the case that editors are all too generous in assigning pages to WikiProjects. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:52, 22 January 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 the category, but keep the template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Abumusa County geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Grossly undersized stub category. Delete category, upmerge template. No predjudice against recreation of category once article count permits. Dawynn (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, it completes the set; every other item in the province is categorized by its county, just because one has fewer than the rest is no reason to delete it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category per nom. The 'set' of templates will still be intact, and can be added to any new articles created, but at the moment this category really serves no helpful purpose. Also, every other item is not categorised by county - there are 4 times as many articles in the province parent --Qetuth (talk) 01:41, 23 January 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Winterville, North Carolina to Category:People from Pitt County, North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category has just 3 entries. ...William 17:44, 21 January 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Swedish female actors to Category:Swedish actresses

Nominator's rationale: Only ctgr with such title; all others use actresses (not female actors) in the title Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is not technically true. We have Category:Lesbian actors which is by its very nature limited to females. We also have Category:Swedish female pornographic film actors and 35 similarly named sister categories. It is true that this is the only sub-category of Category:Actresses by nationality that does not use actresses, but there are those other two sub-cats of Category:Actresses that do not use that form, so this is not a complete outlier. Let me make it 100% clear that I am not expressing an opinion one way or the other at this time, I am just stating how things are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per recent precedent. I would also support renaming the porn categories: perhaps this will be a follow up nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to conform for to its closest siter categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for now, to ensure consistency with other similar categories, but without prejudice to a future mass renaming to "female actors".
  In the recent lengthy discussion at the Village Pump and at the CFD for Category:Actresses, a number of editors made a good case that a) "actress" is perceived as a diminutive term, and is declining in usage; b) using "female actors" matches the terminology of Category:Male actors. A significant number of editors who opposed categorising actors by gender did so solely on the basis of their opposition to the term "actress", and we should have a wider substantive discussion on whether to use that term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I checked using the Corpus of Contemporary American English, which is the premier publicly available online concordance of the English lanaguage. The term Actress shows up over 10,000 times to only 29 for "female actor". So it appears in Contemporary English (at least as used in the US), actress is the common term. Google searches I have done suggest that British publications also use the term actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 27 January 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 (i.e, do not rename). This nomination is another illustration of the problems caused by the use of adjectival forms of country names, which are in many cases either ambiguous or non-neural. However, there is no consensus here to make this case an exception to the existing guidelines on when to use them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:American stock market indices to Category:United States stock market indices

Nominator's rationale: To make consistent accepted WP naming conventions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:United States stock market indexes. Indexes is an acceptable plural and makes the meaning more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename The parent is Category:Stock market indices by country, and within that parent, all the entries use the format "Fooian stock market indices", so we have Category:Dutch stock market indices and Category:Italian stock market indices (not Category:Netherlands stock market indexes or Category:Italy stock market indices or any other variation thereof). We have a standard and we should conform to it, rather than arbitrarily changing the format from "Fooian stock market indices" to "Foo stock market indexes" to create Category:United States stock market indexes while leaving all of the other entries unchanged and in conflict with this one entry, making this all much less clear. Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Seems to me Alansohn makes a clear case not to rename. Fooian is used extensively in this category and I see no good reason to make an exception in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "indices" is the correct plural. While "American" is slightly ambiguous, it most usually refers to USA. In any event there are unlikely to be enough articles for it to matter if Canadian, Mexican, or Brazilian indioces get added. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three NA national categories are also right there under Category:North American stock market indices. I realize, as a citizen of a country in the Americas, that this issue is going to be raised until the cows come home. But I don't think there's any real confusion that the nominated category is going to include a stock market index from, say, Peru. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose The current name fits the pattern of all its sibling categories found in Category:Stock market indices by country, and contrary to the nomination, this change would make this category inconsistent with WP standards. Hmains (talk) 04:21, 28 January 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Ultra (British band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See eponymous band categories. Andrewaskew (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#Eponymous: "The eponymous article in question typically already contains links to articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories)." In this case, with only two albums - every article is already linked to every other article contained in this category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:09, 23 January 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The Bronx (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content--all interlinked —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the category has over 20 pages in it. The face that the article content of the category is in a template should not be relevant. Cats do not exists for the readers but for wikipedia work. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – there was a developing consensus a year or so ago that eponymous musician/band categories with 3 or more subcats were OK (Cgingold was the author of this criterion but he seems not to contribute at cfd these days). It is my opinion that linking 3 subcats in category space via their eponymous category is much more elegant than the cumbersome alternatives of extraneous templates or multiple catSeeAlsos. (There will be 1000s of these with 3 or 4 subcats. Is the nom doing them one by one?) Oculi (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See eponymous band categories. Andrewaskew (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The category contains three subcategories, albums, album covers and songs, with sixteen articles and fifteen files between them, the band's article, a band member's article, discography and the template, so there is not "too little content." Three subcategories should be enough to keep the category. Aspects (talk) 18:45, 22 January 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Testament (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See eponymous band categories. Andrewaskew (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The category contains three subcategories, albums, members and songs, with 33 articles between them, the band's article, discography and the template, so there is not "too little content." Three subcategories should be enough to keep the category. Aspects (talk) 18:41, 22 January 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tarkan (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on precedent, this is typically the max amount of content that gets these eponymous categories deleted; that is, only subcats for songs and albums and a discography page (no use counting the topic article and I don't consider the categorizion of templates, books, images as helpful). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no enough content to justify an eponymous category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See eponymous band categories. Andrewaskew (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a band, therefore that is not relevant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. While it is debatable whether a singer is simply a type of one man band. I feel that Justin (koavf) is using the same logic to cover this eponymous musical category. As to whether that principle should apply in this (or any case), is a matter for discussion. (For my part, I feel it should apply, but that is neither here not there.) I wanted editors to be aware of it, which is why my interjection is a "comment" not a 'vote' one way or the other. Andrewaskew (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A singer is a person, therefore they are subject to the rules on eponymous categories about people, and this category clearly fails those rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 24 January 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Strings (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is quite a bit of content that is stored in this category, 16 pages to be exact. That seems to be enough to justify its existence. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Guerillero. I'm willing to change my mind, if nom can point me to a policy that indicates that this level of content is "too little".--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See eponymous band categories. Andrewaskew (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The category contains three subcategories, albums, members and songs, with fourteen articles between them, the band's article and the template, so there is not "too little content." Three subcategories should be enough to keep the category. Aspects (talk) 18:47, 22 January 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 to Category:Iranian female athletes (track and field). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Iranian women athletes to Category:Iranian female athletes

Nominator's rationale: Like the others in Category:Female athletes by nationality. Kasper2006 (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Iranian female athletes (track and field) to avoid confusion with the more general sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Iranian female athletes (track and field) per JPL. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Iranian female athletes (track and field) per John Pack Lambert Mayumashu (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you rename this, you need to rename also Category:Iranian athletes. --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But since this is the category under discussion we can rename it now, and then consider that category on its own. You are the one who nominated this category, which opens it up to any consideration for renaming that editors have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 24 January 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. There was agreement to delete this category, but no explanation from anyone of why to delete this category without also deleting its subcat Category:Sponsored compilation albums. So I am closing this discussion as no consensus, without prejudice to an immediate group nomination which includes any related sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Sponsored albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Trivial association —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and possibly listify Sponsored film is a particular type of film, with its own article. Based on this category's contents, I don't see "sponsored albums" as a distinct type in the same way. However, per WP:PRESERVE how about a list, instead? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Beyond the trivial association, as opposed to films, I'm not sure there is something called a "sponsored album", at least enough so that this isn't a defining aspect of an album. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:06, 30 January 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Pretty Boy Floyd (American band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Are we running some sort of scripting that is identifying band categories with fewer than a certain page membership? And did we forget to take into account subcategories, which by my count give over twelve more indirect members of this category? Perhaps we would like to consider suggesting an upmerge instead. Mangoe (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck most of response in light of guideline mentioned below. Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See eponymous band categories. Andrewaskew (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no formal guideline as to where the line is drawn, only precedent. But without an independent discography page, this fails WP:OC#EPONYMOUS because all contents of the categories and subcategories are all linkable from the eponymous article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:09, 30 January 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: upmerge to Category:Government-owned companies of India. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Share Market Listed Public Sector Undertaking in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Rename or upmerge. This category should be renamed as the name seems to be confusing and grammatically incorrect. In addition, it violates WP:NCCAPS. However, I am not sure what would be the better category name. I am also not sure if this category is needed, so one option could be deletion or upmerging into category:Government-owned companies of India. Technically it may be speedy deleted as a work created by the sockpuppet of a blocked editor; however, I think that more broader discussion about this category is needed. Beagel (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- The whole concept strikes me as an oxymoron. If the government owns a company, it has 100% of the shares, so that there can be no shares to be listed. On the other hand, if they have even a minority of listed shares, they cannot be govenrment owned. Most of the contents are nationalised banks. The first thing needs to be to create a main article to explain what this is about. Is it "state-owned banks in India issueing listed bonds" or "state controlled companies with listed shares" or what? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 06:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Upmerge to Category:Government-owned companies of India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 22 January 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Films About Singlehood to ?

Nominator's rationale: We do have an main article, single person, that I've added to the category description, so I suppose we could rename along those lines? Although the category creator cautions that "Those Movies which Talk Generally about Singles are not included here." Some may chose to listify. Others, delete. I really don't have a strong take on what exactly should be done. But I think something needs to happen. At the very least, an obvious, speedy capitalization fix... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless someone can come up with several reliable sources that this is a genre in film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Dear Shawn. I Understand your attempt to fix the name, but I would like to remind you of these movies listed in the page, I am sure you watched them, so Did I, then it struck me that this Category name is a key word, then I found that there lots of movies named singles , The Bachelor and theses kind of movies have nothing to do with my page that centers about singles (unmarrieds) and their beliefs, ideas Etc. and I do not put a film in the list unless it allies to the definition. as for Those who Disapprove this name, I say, if your reason is the name, alright what do you suggest?, or about the group (Genre, Topic), alright, what kind of list would you put theses movies? (apart from Deleting List). if it is not well defined, Ok, help me define it well, Please.Because I defined the list carefully to avoid irrelevant and Nominally similar films.PS These lists start with "films about" help me a lot find my favorite topic Films listed in one page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu aamir (talk • contribs) 18:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but this is categorized under Category:Films by topic, not Category:Films by genre. Therefore it shouldn't be necessary to demonstrate that this is "a genre." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anything, it should be titled Category:Films about singlehood. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not well defined. Are the films about being single? Is(Are) the main character(s) single? When you have to note what shouldn't go into a category that maybe should, I doubt in either case that it's a defining aspect of the film. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • fwiw, there is a detailed if poorly written category description that attempts to define it, though I do not at all disagree with deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most "films about x" categories are not good ideas, and I think this one in particular is a very bad idea. It also almost looks like an article masquerading as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Films about a single person? Films starring a single person? Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete suffers from the perennial problem of the "films about Foo" categories; how much must the film be "about" the topic to be "about" it, and what reliable source says so? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:35, 24 January 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Not The Wikipedia Weekly

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Category devoted to inactive podcast, unlikely to grow. Only article is a member of Category:Wikipedia news, making this category tautologically redundant. Andrewaskew (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a smallcat covered as well with larger cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 22 January 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.