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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 13:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The template that goes with this category apparently does not exist, and the category is empty. I will soon begin auto-sorting articles tagged for cleanup by topic onto WP:PNA, so this category will become obsolete, anyway. -- Beland 01:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete may have been used in the past and seems no longer needed gidonb 15:08, 16 April 2006 (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 to Category:Sport in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 13:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This is the name of the country and all of the articles are relevant to the whole country, rather than just Saint Vincent. Rename CalJW 21:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 11:44, 15 April 2006 (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 keep. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Mobile phone companies

• Redirect; to Category:Mobile phone companies -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, make Category:Mobile phone companies a subcategory. According to the history, it was redirected long ago. Actually, mobile phone companies are a subset of wireless carrier, as this category should also include prominent WiFi or WiMax carriers. -- William Allen Simpson 08:45, 16 April 2006 (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 to Category:Democratic National Committee chairmen Category:Democratic National Committee chairs. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 12:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Abbreviation expansion. mattbr³⁰ 19:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• rename per nom. CalJW 21:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as "DNC" is an American thing only. Harr o 5 22:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as category:Democratic National Committee chairmen (lowercase "c") to match category:Republican National Committee chairmen. (Someday I'd like see these as "chairpersons" but I guess I can wait till we actually have one who's a woman.)-- Mike Selinker 00:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Uh, both major parties have had female heads. - choster 21:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Democratic National Committee chairmen or Category:Democratic National Committee chairs. " Chairperson" is right out.- choster 02:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Democratic National Committee chairmen per Mike Selinker. — Wh o uk ( talk) 09:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Chairs of the Democratic National Committee. David Kernow 11:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Democratic National Committee chairs -- The official page frequently lists "DNC Chair Howard Dean", "Vice Chair Mike Honda", "Vice Chair Linda Chavez-Thompson", do not conflate the progressive DNC practices distinguished from the reactionary RNC. See also the Democratic National Committee page, these are listed as #DNC Chairpersons. According to our own chairperson article, the term "Chair" has been in use since 1658. -- William Allen Simpson 08:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I buy that. "Chairs" is better than "chairmen" for both this and category:Republican National Committee chairmen.-- Mike Selinker 17:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Democratic National Committee chairs as 1. chairs is gender neutral 2. chairs is shorter and Democratic National Committee is rather long gidonb 15:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Thanks to the people above for highlighting a change to a lowercase 'c'. I would also support a change to chairs (or chairpersons) as suggested. mattbr³⁰ 19:02, 16 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 13:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

blanked by Buchanan-Hermit -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:26, 19 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 13:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Indie comics, blanked by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:22, 14 April 2006 (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 no consensus as proposed category has also been proposed for deletion. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 13:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

We have here three categories for the same thing. The two I'm listing for merge actually redirect to the third. But they have members, so it would indeed be a merge. There was a 4th category, but it was empty, so I've already speedy deleted it. But these two are populated, so they need to go through here to be properly handled. - TexasAndroid 16:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• MERGE ALL TO Category:Ring of Fire alternate history series, as the publisher uses Ring of Fire to indicate this series. 70.51.11.101 23:25, 16 April 2006 (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 to Category:Unofficial sequels. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 13:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Category name as currently stands seems too vague; perhaps category itself is too vague. Suggestions, please? David Kernow 16:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment; perhaps Sequels in spirit; at least then it doesn't sound occult -- ProveIt ^(talk)
• Ideally this would also allow for Wide Sargasso Sea (the "follow-up" to Jane Eyre). I'd suggest a rename to category:Sequels not by the original creator. ( category:Spiritual Sequels, with a difference in capitalization, should also be deleted.)-- Mike Selinker 00:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• 'Unofficial sequals'? -- Doc ^ask? 09:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'd totally buy category:Unofficial sequels. It could hold a very interesting set of things.-- Mike Selinker 15:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• I'm beginning to wonder if this category is viable. Its doesn't seem to rule out "things inspired by predecessors without being sequels or even referencing their predecessors" or the like. Also, its current content is lean and solely computer video games. Have amended my original comment above. David Kernow 11:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• In case my current position not clear, delete as too vague. If kept, rename to Category:Unofficial sequels. David Kernow 09:38, 16 April 2006 (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 no consensus delete. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 13:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The Korean Peninsula has no military, should be North or South -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment. The one article in this category is from the South. Perhaps delete and move the article to Category:Military equipment of South Korea, or rename it and make it a sub category of the military equipment one. mattbr³⁰ 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I had been planing the former, but either suggestion is fine with me. Either way, the current cat has to go. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete and move the article to Category:Military equipment of South Korea -- William Allen Simpson 08:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment "Korean" is a valid super-national category for cases in which both "North Korean" and "South Korean" categories exist. For completeness, sometimes it can exist with only one of them below it. In any case, if an article is specific to either, it should be appropriately sub-catted. In this specific case however, I would agree, the super-national category is not needed, and even a South Korean cat is probably unnecessary. Josh 03:01, 18 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 13:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Abandoned project? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete I have no idea what use it might be. Bhoeble 22:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have vague recollections of this being yet another Ubercat starting point, from which you could navigate down to anywhere. It doesn't look very used at the moment though. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 00:36, 16 April 2006 (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 to Category:Coordination compounds. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 14:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

It should be plural, and parentheses should be avoided. — Keenan Pepper 15:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Coordination compounds per chemists below. David Kernow 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Complexes (chemistry); a "chemical complexes" sounds like the entries would be a group of buildings, even if that definition isn't mentioned at the disambiguation page Complex. For example, "Siel Chemical Complex (SCC) is one of the leading Chlor Alkali manufacturer in North India. " [1] Gene Nygaard 19:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Maybe Category:Chemistry complexes would solve that problem? Gene Nygaard 19:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

  Category:Coordination compounds? Femto 12:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that one's better. — Keenan Pepper 17:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Coordination compounds is definitely better. I have asked the participants at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry to give their opinion. -- Bduke 01:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Coordination compounds, which is most consistent with terminology that chemists use. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 11:04, 16 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 14:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The category contains no entries and is misnamed in any case, it should be named Soviet Rifle Divisions. Andreas 14:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete However, as a note, please do not empty and orphan a category before putting up a cfd. Appropriate moves and other actions will be taken once the cfd is complete, so no need to do it before hand. Josh 03:06, 18 April 2006 (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 to Category:Cities and towns in Bulgaria. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 14:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

In Bulgarian, no difference between a city and a town is made (including officially), i.e. they are both called grad. I suggest these two are united to form Category:Cities and towns in Bulgaria, because there's practically no way to tell which one is a city and which one a town. Another related category is Category:Villages in Bulgaria, which should be put in some kind of umbrella category with those two. This time there is an official distinction between a village (selo) and a town, so I think the category can stay, but as part of some kind of Category:Settlements in Bulgaria or Category:Cities, towns and villages in Bulgaria.

Also, could someone please add a relevant tag to the categories — I thought {{ cfm}} would've been appropriate, but merging doesn't suggest a name change. Should both a {{ cfr}} and a {{ cfm}} be added? → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 12:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge Cities and towns to Category:Cities and towns in Bulgaria. Don't change Category:Villages in Bulgaria, but add "See also: Category:Villages in Bulgaria to the new merged cities and towns category. "Settlements" categories are a pointless extra tier and are not standard. As long as the categories are both in Category:Geography of Bulgaria and refer to each other, that is sufficient. CalJW 21:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. I agree with the way you see it. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per CalJW & TodorBozhinov. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 21 April 2006 (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. Femto 16:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Redundant with List of chemical compounds with unusual names. This makes much more sense as a browsable list, rather than to group unrelated articles together whose unusual naming should be obvious from their titles. Femto 12:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• I agree, the list format is better. No need for a category. — Keenan Pepper 14:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify per above. David Kernow 16:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete the category. And I wouldn't mind deleting the reference article as well. Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 20:06, 16 April 2006 (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 keep. Femto 16:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I stumbled upon this when a Scottish church denomination was categorised, and found that it had been out in a category with an Irish millitary regiment, a US university band, a railwoad company, and a Parisian writers' association - all unassociated except for their year of origin. Wikiperia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so please delete these. -- Doc ^ask? 09:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. If it were a list article, I would be inclined to agree, but categorizing by date in some form seems reasonable to me. Should we also delete the "date births" and "date deaths" categories? Why not all the date related categories? — Eoghanacht ^talk 10:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, so tell me what use this category could be to a reader, especialy if it developes to the point that you have every corporate entity on the encyclopedia so categorised? Let's not clutter articles with useless categories that distract from the useful ones. -- Doc ^ask? 10:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not claiming it is particularly useful, only that it is as useful as categorizing both Nguyen Binh Khiem and Sabina of Bavaria in Category:1492 births. If people can be categorized by year of birth, then why not have a similar set of categories for establishments? — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Trivial, but fascinating, like many other valued corners of Wikipedia. Like the birth and death cats, this doesn't exactly add new information, but it does provide a measure of historical perspective on what was happening in different parts of the world at the time X was established. -- Visviva 12:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

We have articles on each year to do that. Trivia is interesting, but at some level it clutters up the important things while adding nothing significant. -- Doc ^ask? 12:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The point of history is to group unassociated events together by their date, isn't it? As an example Category:1901 establishments is for institutions what Category:1901 births is for people. It's a legitimate subcategory of Category:1901, and an appropriate head category itself. Femto 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Can someone please tell me what frigg'n use it is, though?-- Doc ^ask? 14:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

What? The births, establishments, or categorization by date as a whole? Femto 14:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep; per Visviva -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep As per Femto. Also the year pages allow readers to find out about major unassociated events in a given year; the establishments categories (and the births categories etc) provide more detail. It's useful for detailled research about what's going on in the world in a given year. Greenshed 20:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep The types of articles found in these rarely have category-clutter problems. Category-clutter is mainly a problem on biographical articles. CalJW 21:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Femto and Greenshed. -- Malepheasant 22:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It is useful to compare entities established in the same year and can be wonderfully serendipitous. Jonathan Bowen 22:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete at least all those before 1000. An establishment date is not as well defined as a birth date, and most of these are uncertain as well. Most of these will be single-member anyway. Septentrionalis 23:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That makes sense, but instead merge those cases to something more manageable like Category:300 BC to 400 BC establishments? Femto 10:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Femto's idea has merit. However, I imagine that other editors may just recreate the single year categories (at least from 1 to 1000 AD). I favour the creation of a hierarchy of categories as has been done for birth date - i.e. by century (eg Category:400 BC to 300 BC establishments), decade (eg Category:380 BC to 371 BC establishments and then year (if required). Editors would then categorize as appropriate. Greenshed 17:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It is an interesting and useful category. It is similar to the birth and death categories. Carioca 20:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Interesting and harmless. Nathcer 13:41, 20 April 2006 (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 not consencus. Shyam ^{( T/ C)}

Rename. Appears to have been a simple misspelling at the time the category was created. -- Nlu ( talk) 08:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

List it under requests for speedy renaming above. - Darwinek 08:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose -- should be deleted entirely. This was a WP:POINT creation made to disrupt debate, explaining the haste and misspelling, see WP:DRV. -- William Allen Simpson 08:09, 16 April 2006 (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 to Category:Inheritance Trilogy. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

No, actually, it's about the Inheritance Trilogy, not about inheritance. Rename as such to Category:Inheritance Trilogy. Grutness... wha? 06:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename; per nom -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Inheritance Trilogy (per nom's suggestion). David Kernow 16:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom— G. He_(Talk!) 02:12, 22 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 14:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Wagering, blanked by 2005 -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:22, 14 April 2006 (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 withdrawn TexasAndroid 17:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Too narrow -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 09:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Actually, I'm not sure it's too narrow. In addition to Mam'selle and You'll Never Know, three other songs with articles ( Chattanooga Choo-Choo, At Last, and With My Eyes Wide Open, I'm Dreaming) would belong here, and if you look at his song list, you can imagine several other such articles. This is a fine subcategory of category:Songs by lyricist, though I'd probably rename it to category:Songs by Mack Gordon.-- Mike Selinker 15:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment; If someone wants to populate it, I'll withdraw my nomination. I think there may be a copyvio on the cat page as well. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Done. I removed the copyvio too.-- Mike Selinker 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• I withdraw my nomination -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:29, 14 April 2006 (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 already deleted TexasAndroid 17:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Abandoned -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

abandoned? Never used AFAIK. Speediable if it's been empty 48 hours, which seems very likely. Grutness... wha? 06:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

It's been there for a bit more than three weeks so far .... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:11, 14 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 13:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

blanked by Visviva -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Awkward category. Bhoeble 09:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, now redundant with Category:Retail companies of South Korea and Category:Shipping companies of South Korea. My apologies for having forgotten about it and not brought it here myself. Incidentally, this was part of a bizarre series of South Korean business cats created by User:Mirmo!, most of which still haven't been properly dealt with. -- Visviva 12:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not least for use of ampersand. David Kernow 16:42, 14 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 13:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Spam from Coach Marilyn -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 09:03, 14 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 13:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

blanked by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:22, 14 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 14:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Rugby in Spain -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete Bhoeble 09:03, 14 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)}

See: Category:Spanish futsal clubs -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:22, 14 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)}

blanked by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not a designation which is used in the UK category system. Bhoeble 09:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Bhoeble. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 14 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)}

blanked by Omniplex -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:22, 14 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)}

• What is the difference between this category and its only subcategory?? What other subcategories can this category have?? Georgia guy 01:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• In the Wikipedia hierarchy all forms of football are football, so the soccer category could be added, and there are a few articles about rugby and Australian rules in the States too, but Delete this anyway. The best alternative would be to rename it to Category:Football codes in the United States and populate it, but folks would just get confused. Scranchuse 02:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete is the simplest remedy. × Meegs 05:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Its subcategory is already in the category:Football hierarchy.-- Mike Selinker 14:52, 14 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)}

There is already a category for this purpose, at Category:National Hockey League goalies who have scored in a game. Aottley 00:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge Scranchuse 02:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Naw, just delete it. It has no contents, just a long and winding description.-- Mike Selinker 15:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• CategoryRedirect 70.51.11.101 23:26, 16 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)}

category with only one possible entry which is already in the parent category Sandpiper 00:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 09:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. — Wh o uk ( talk) 09:17, 15 April 2006 (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 non-existent entry. Shyam ^{( T/ C)}

misspelled, already at Category:Time Bomb Recordings albums Dan, the CowMan 00:49, 14 April 2006 (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. Shyam ^{( T/ C)}

This was proposed for CSD under the claim "A MySpace doesnt even make sense!", but this isn't a reason for speedy. No proof of the cat's entries being true (particularly in the case of Aniston, by far the most notable in the cat) and unlikely to be verifiable. Harr o 5 22:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom Nathcer 07:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as generally unverifiable. If kept, rename. — Wh o uk ( talk) 09:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless you want Category:Celebrities with an alarm clock, Category:Celebrities with a Toyota, etc. Carlossuarez46 18:51, 21 April 2006 (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.