The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply

This should be renamed to the standard form category:Economy of London. Its parent category:Economy of the United Kingdom was recently renamed along the same lines. CalJW 23:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. -- Reinyday, 00:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge -- Kbdank71 14:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply

It's a misspelling, but the merge needs to go through here. - TexasAndroid 20:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Murj. No argooment. siafu 23:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty Category - TexasAndroid 20:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete A variant on a bad idea that was up for deletion a while back. CalJW 23:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED per CSD G4 which catches things recreated under any title and applies to things in any namespace. - Splash 15:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply

It's BA-ACK! This category was already deleted under another name ( Category:Sexy Toons). Although the consensus was to delete, a few proposed the renaming of the category to "Cartoon characters with sex appeal". Apparently the anon who originally created Sexy Toons was following the discussion and decided to try his or her luck by re-creating the cat with the minority-opinion rename. May even be a candidate for speedy deletion.

• Delete. POV by its very nature. BrianSmithson 11:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply

It is redundant as Category:Fair use movie posters already exists and is far more comprehensive. *drew 08:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete because all the items belong in the other category, but there must be some out of copyright movied posters by now, so this could legitimately be revived with some very old posters. Osomec 16:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 16:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Singaporean law to match other entries in Category:Law by country. -- Reinyday, 06:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. No argument. siafu 16:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge -- Kbdank71 14:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge into larger and standard form category:Companies of France and delete. CalJW 00:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nominator. -- Reinyday, 06:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. No argument. siafu 16:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.