< October 25 October 27 >

October 26

Category:Doop (band) songs

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There appears to only be one such song Rathfelder (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2016 (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:Women in Middlesbrough

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; merge contents to Category:People from Middlesbrough, as needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesnt really make sense by using "in" and is not part of a recognised category tree as far as I can see, clearly duplicates Category:People from Middlesbrough which should be used instead. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this keep argument, as far I can see there aren't any other "women in city" categories populated with biographies. (If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Women from Middlesbrough.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2016 (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:LGBT people opposing same-sex marriage

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. Brandmeistertalk 17:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We usually don't categorize people by their opinion on one particular subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that this is a fair comparison. Presumably "anti-movement" is more defining for a person than "anti-single-issue". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created it as a split from the parent Category:LGBT opposition to same-sex marriage, since individual LGBT people's arguments for opposition (or whatever related opinion) cannot be taken as LGBT opposition in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your strategy was to immediately shift them into a new subcategory you were then going to immediately list for deletion, instead of just removing them from the inappropriate original category like almost anybody else would have? That doesn't really make it any more understandable. Bearcat (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marco, why did you nominate the category for deletion four minutes after you created it? Jim Michael (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't sure that plainly removing the category from the articles would be appropriate, therefore initiated the discussion. I'm willing to accept the possible outcome of the discussion that the subcategory as I created it is appropriate after all (although that's not what I'm proposing). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, you should have started a discussion on the talk page of the parent cat in regard to who should be included in it. Jim Michael (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jim Michael's right...if that's what you wanted to do, you should have initiated a discussion, perhaps via RFC, on the category's talk page rather than creating a new category you're intending to immediately nominate for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a stale deadlocked discussion from October 8, as it hasn't attracted any new input there in two weeks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2016 (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:Macedonian doctors

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, without prejudice to a future broader discussion about doctor categories across countries (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty Rathfelder (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the only article to Category:Macedonian physicians. Rathfelder (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2016 (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.
More