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. But to what? Opinion was divided but Category:Public Houses in Canada to Category:Drinking establishments in Canada got the high card. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Public Houses in Canada to Category:Drinking establishments in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As a convention of Category:Drinking establishments by country and the matching category on Commons, and because "drinking establishment" in the broader generic term which should be filled in first, before creating sub-cats. -- Kevlar ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- Drinking establishment may be the US term. It is not the British one, and should not be imposed on Canada. I do not know what terms they use, but the category should conform to nataional usage, not what some foreign WP-ian think it should be. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Actually in the US they are bars. I think drinking establishment may be the language neutral version. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Exactly: national terminology should be used for each country category, even if it fails to conform to the international neutral title of the parent. This is often done, thoughmore often merely by using British selling for British categories and US spelling for American ones. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Just keep in mind that Canadian terminology is much more likely to follow American rather than British models. We don't call gasoline "petrol" or trucks "lorries," for examples. And the nominated category is equally unsuited to Canada. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Just as Canadians don't call gasoline "petrol", they don't call pubs "drinking establishments". Canadians definitely use the term pub instead of "public house", but the all-encompassing term "bar" could be used instead for a category. DigitalC ( talk) 21:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Well, no, of course, no one says I'm going to the "drinking establishment": it's simply a broad generic top-level category name, as we often use here. As Kevlar points out below, a tavern is not strictly speaking a bar, at least not in Canada. A tavern is more likely to be a beer parlour (in Quebec, it also meant male-only until relatively recently) whereas a bar is more associated with hard liquor and mixed drinks, at least in my experience. As for pub: it has currency as a specifically UK or Irish-themed drinking establishment only. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
          • Agreed with Shawn. While Canada certainly does have pubs, we also have far more drinking establishments that aren't pubs — unlike the UK, where the pub is the predominant type of drinking establishment, in Canada they're just one type among many. And not the most common type, either. And furthermore, even for the places in Canada that are pubs, there aren't enough encyclopedically notable ones to justify a separate subcategory just for pubs alone. I don't particularly care whether the replacement category is named "Bars" or "Drinking establishments" — and what people actually say in conversation about their own Friday night plans is irrelevant to that determination, because it's about finding a term that appropriately includes all licensed drinking establishments whether they're nightclubs, pubs, taverns, lounges, sports bars or whatever — but the current term isn't suitable. Rename. Bearcat ( talk) 01:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Opposed per the convention of Category:Public houses in the United Kingdom, and the only article in the category using the term "public house". Public house does appear to be the term in the Commonwealth. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 23:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment – it would be perfectly feasible to have Category:Drinking establishments in the United Kingdom as a parent to Category:British bars and clubs (which needs a rename) and Category:Public houses in the United Kingdom as bars and clubs are undoubtedly drinking establishments but are not pubs. (Does Canada really just have one notable pub and no notable bars or clubs? At least there is 1 place in Canada (the Kilt and Clover) to host the International Chicken Chucking Championships.) Occuli ( talk) 01:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Pubs in Canada... as a Canadian, I have never encountered the term "public house" (it's probably used in law, but who uses legal terms in common parlance?), I have seen the term "drinking establishment" being used, but not much. "Bar" and "Pub" are commonly used though. 76.66.197.17 ( talk) 05:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename to either Category:Bars in Canada or Category:Pubs in Canada. Some pubs do refer to themselves as public houses (ie, the Yellowbelly Brewery & Public House, the Library Square Public House, The Queen and Beaver Public House, etc.) however, the commonly used term would be "Pub". "Bars in Canada" would encompass more than just pubs, as people refer to both pubs and nightclubs as "Bars". I have my doubt that people in other Commonwealth countries refer to pubs as "public houses", although they would likely be listed as such in the yellow pages. DigitalC ( talk) 15:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. I had no idea what a Public House was until this CfD. Canada is not the U.K., and in this particular case its "Commonwealth" status really has no bearing, IMO Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. To clarify, I am a Canadian and use Canadian English. The term "public house" is rare and archaic here. Pub is used but it simply considered one type of drinking establishment of which are are many other sub-types including taverns, bars, clubs, lounges, etc. -- Kevlar ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. The best objection raised was that Canada follow the UK in using 'Public House'. That appears to have been refuted by the Canadians here. As to Category:Bars in Canada or Category:Pubs in Canada, they can be created as subcategories if needed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. "Drinking establishment" is language-neutral and descriptive. Subcategories for pubs, bars, and other types of drinking establishments can be created later if they are needed (e.g., if the category becomes overpopulated). – Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 19:58, 27 January 2010 (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 per nominator. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Australian drinking establishments to Category:Drinking establishments in Australia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As a convention of Category:Drinking establishments by country and the matching category on Commons. -- Kevlar ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Note. I just tagged this category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- Drinking establishment may be the US term. It is not the British one, and should not be imposed on Australia. I do not know what terms they use, but the category should conform to nataional usage, not what some foreign WP-ian think it should be. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note that Category:Public Houses in Australia is a subcategory. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support Here, the matter is different. Whereas the Canadian nom is changing the term used, this one is not, it merely changes the word order to match the parent category, and introduces a more natural form for those familiar with the category system. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 23:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support – Punters Club seems not be a pub although many of the XXX Hotels in the category are described as pubs (a hotel in the UK may or may not be a pub depending on its main business). Occuli ( talk) 01:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nominator. Debresser ( talk) 19:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• No problem with support for the rename, but just to flag that this category needs serious attention. Pubs are in this category, in the Category:Public Houses in Australia subcategory, and in subcategories of "Pubs in X". If this was fixed up, would we really need thsi category? -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:11, 17 January 2010 (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. Re: Peterkingiron's comment, the whole -by nationality structure should be nominated/discussed at once based on that rationale. postdlf ( talk) 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Indian Swedenborgians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: only one article in the category.unrequired indian chrisitans category serves the pupose Linguisticgeek ( talk) 15:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. WP:OC#SMALL says that small categories are acceptable when part of a wider series. In this case, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Swedenborgians by nationality has 6 subcategories. Is that enough to qualify?
  In any case, note that simply deleting ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Indian Swedenborgians is not a good solution. If it's going, it should be upmerged to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Swedenborgians and to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Indian Christians ... but are there really no other notable Indian Swedenborgians? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep as Category:Swedenborgians is a container category and has no top level articles. It is also standard to subcat by nationality. Occuli ( talk) 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep as part of the established system of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Swedenborgians by nationality. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 23:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Merge several of the Swedenborgian categories probably need upmerging to their parent. This is a relatively small sect, and all except the American and English categories (the latter the sole member of the British category) have only 1 or 2 members. My prefernece is to upmerge all, leaving British (with English merged to it) and American as the only subcats, and the rest as articles in the parent. National categories can be re-created if the parent becomes heavily populated, but I dount that it will. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• neutral (creator). I don't really care what happens, but I think when it was created there were a couple of other articles, which may have subsequently been deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 20 January 2010 (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. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of North York to Category:Mayors of North York, Ontario

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform with head article North York, Ontario and parent category ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:North York, Ontario and as a followup to renaming of "People from" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 8#Category:People_from_North_York. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 17:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support Rename to match article. Occuli ( talk) 20:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support to line up with prior decision. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 23:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename per nominator. Debresser ( talk) 19:14, 16 January 2010 (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; category was still empty at close. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Teenage Pregnancy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The description for inclusion in this category is "Women who have given birth between the age ranges of 13-19." To me, this implies a value judgment regarding who is included. There are no inclusions whatsoever of article pertaining to such a category. This is a category based on a transitory condition related to the body. Sort of akin to identifying someone who is overweight at some point. This is inappropriate. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 12:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This is an interesting question. I agree with the nominator's observation that this category is based on a value judgement, but OTOH it's a notable value judgement with clearly-defined boundaries which are uncontentious; that sets it apart from the highly POV ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Terrorists, which was deleted at CFD 2009 April 27. In the UK, the topic of teenage pregnancy is highly notable: has been prominently problematised by successive governments, and there is a lot of govt material on it: see http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/teenagepregnancy/ and 135,000 other ghits on gov.uk websites. I don't like categorising things according to the political preferences or terminology of governments, but the term is also widely used in the news media and in academia: see 32,100 ghits on google scholar, and the head article Teenage pregnancy is well-referenced.
  I think so far that I would be reasonably happy for such a category to include articles on the topic of "teenage pregnancy" (tho it needs a capitalisation fix to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Teenage pregnancy), but as with "terrorists" I would strongly oppose such a category being applied to individual women: too many pejorative overtones and BLP issues. This category as it stands is described as being for the categorisation of individual women, which I find uacceptable. If kept, a renamed and repurposed category should include articles such as Teenage pregnancy and sexual health in the United Kingdom, List of youngest birth mothers, and Pregnancy school ... but can it be effectively policed to keep biographical articles out of it? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note the category creator did apply this category to several biographical articles, including Jamie Lynn Spears (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kym Marsh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Jourdan Dunn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In each case the category was removed by the nominator, reinstated, and removed again. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse BHG's remarks. I would go a little further and say there should be a category Category:Teenage pregnancy (not for people), subcat of Category:Pregnancy (not for people). Occuli ( talk) 14:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete; no prejudice to create Category:Teenage pregnancy when appropriate. "Teen pregnancy" is or was the norm in most of the world, and thus undefining for individual pregnant teens; however, the phenomenon is correlated in the industrialized West with sexual health problems, school dropouts, child poverty, illegitimacy, and other things that attract attention. That said, browsing Teenage pregnancy I didn't see many links that would logically belong in such a category.- choster ( talk) 20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- I have added a parent category, so that it is not an orphan, but I found the category empty. If kept and intended to be Category:Women who became pregnant under the age of 19, it seems to me that there are two different groups: (1) those who became pregnant when above the age of consent, which is a normal consequence of lawful sexual intercourse, for which I dount we need a category at all (2) those who became pregnant below that age (who at - at least technically - victims of child abuse), potentially Category:Women who became pregnant under the age of consent, but how many of them willbe notable? The age of consent no dount varies between countries; in mine it is 16. We already have Category:Precocious puberty and pregnancy, which partly deals with the latter (though its main article is Precocious puberty. The two women, who were listed, both gave birth at the age of 17 or more, in circumstances that are hardly extraordinary. As an empty category, the best solution is probably to delete it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- As it stands the category will contain the biography articles of most women born before 1700 other than nuns. jnestorius^{( talk)} 23:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • There's a goodly number of nuns who'd be in there too. But you're right: only in the more developed parts of the world, in the 20th century, that teenage pregnancy became in any way unusual. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I would have no objection to a category about teenage pregnancy, but this category of people-who-were-pregnant-teens is not encyclopedic. -- Alynna ( talk) 02:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep

Hello there I am the one who started this catergory NO way is this supposed to be judgemental its purely factual when a woman gives birth between 13-19 its called teenage pregnancy NOT a POV point at all since that is whats its called, people are letting there own POV get interferred who are nominating it for deletion because its a taboo topic term for them to hear and isnt something perhaps many of who were on the list wud be proud to have catergorized. well I thought wikipedia should never allow itself to turn itself into the fanpage for the people biographed? Some of the women that were on the list were MARRIED and in some places in the world giving birth at 18 isnt unsual.If the caterogry needs work i think would be more apporiate but to delete when it was just created out of bias would be incorrect. Miss-simworld ( talk) 16:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep but remove redundant capital. And I would make the border-age 18. Category:Teenage pregnancy. Debresser ( talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Why do you propose to redefine "teenage" to exclude 19-year-olds? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment also if people are afraid of women being single out then I would be open for the catergory title being changed into "Teenage Parents". If people want men to be included aswell Miss-simworld ( talk) 22:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep / Rename to Category:Teenage pregnancy as reliable and verifiable sources treat this as a defining characteristic. Alansohn ( talk) 18:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Question. How exactly is it defining when, as several editors have pointed out, it is a characteristic of most women in human history? It's probably a characteristic of more women than "married women" would be". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Arbitrary and not generally a defining characteristic. If you look back in history, you will find that the later births we are seeing today is far from the past norm. As I recall in the middle ages 13 was the normal age for a mother to give birth. So without something more specific age (or age and century) this is useless. Being able to source someones age when they gave birth does not mean we need a category. I'll also argue that this becomes even more meaningless when you consider that many of these teenagers are married so what makes this defining for them. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:04, 23 January 2010 (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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 25#Philippine literature-related categories. postdlf ( talk) 16:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Category:Filipino online literature writers
• Category:Short story collections by Filipino writers
• I propose deleting both of these categories for being narrow intersections. For the first one, its name is really over-specific considering there's no other country with a "online literature writers" category. For the second one, I suppose it could be renamed to "Filipino short stories", but with only one page inside I don't see the point in renaming. Kimchi.sg ( talk) 03:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep the second one and rename it appropriately to suit Category:Short story collections by nationality, and change the parents to correct ones (eg a book is not a writer). (This assumes the book is notable. It is minimally sourced.) The first one should be deleted unless someone can find other "online literature writers" categories (its sole article is in several 'Filipino writers' categories). Occuli ( talk) 22:15, 15 January 2010 (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 all. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Nomination comment: The rationale for all of those listed below is the same except for the creation dates. I've separated them out into sections in case users want to discuss the possibility of more additions to the category of a particular country, since the current state of the Bahá'í Faith in some of these places is vastly different. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge all per nom, without prejudice to re-creation if and when there are more articles to populate them. I don't see any grounds to believe that any of these categories have a reasonable prospect of expansion, other than ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Bahá'í Faith in Iran, which wisely has not been included in the nomination. I suggest that a lot of other sub-cats of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Bahá'í Faith by country should also be upmerged. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge all per nom and BHG. A criterion might be made that there should be at least a people subcat such as Category:Italian Bahá'ís (or several non-biographies, which seems unlikely, as 2 seems to be the maximum). Occuli ( talk) 14:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Question Is it worth having the category just as a container for the people subcat? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'ld beg folks indulgence. I agree there are many times few articles per category, but most of the focus has been on filling out the main category of articles per country and only tangentially pulling in other articles. I think I've demonstrated that articles could be written about just about any country. Branching out to other topics per country is demonstrated in some articles like the UK but regional articles per country have not been a focus so far. I think review of many country articles will find mention of subregions often which could be articles later. From my standpoint it would simply be easier if the overall parallel structure were ... parallel. However I'm hearted to see " without prejudice to re-creation". Smkolins ( talk) 17:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Creating a series of other other articles to populate all these categories sounds like a lot of work. If you're prepared to do that work, then I wish you well ... but until those other articles exist, the categories are not needed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Creating all the articles myself has never been my aim. But for more than one reason I've pressed ahead and certainly welcome more input. Smkolins ( talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

as another kind of example consider an article in a sandbox of mine which could be related to the religion in many countries. Smkolins ( talk) 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Merge all as nom, without prejudice to re-creation if it can be populated properly. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge all per nominator. Debresser ( talk) 19:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Bahá'í Faith in Afghanistan

Suggest merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in Afghanistan to Category:Religion in Afghanistan and Category:Bahá'í Faith by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Created 8 months ago and still only contains main article Bahá'í Faith in Afghanistan. Suggest upmerging to parents without prejudice to re-creation when more articles or subcategories on the topic are available. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Bahá'í Faith in Angola

Suggest merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in Angola to Category:Religion in Angola and Category:Bahá'í Faith by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Created 5 months ago and still only contains main article Bahá'í Faith in Angola. Suggest upmerging to parents without prejudice to re-creation when more articles or subcategories on the topic are available. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Bahá'í Faith in Armenia

Suggest merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in Armenia to Category:Religion in Armenia and Category:Bahá'í Faith by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Created 8 months ago and still only contains main article Bahá'í Faith in Armenia. Suggest upmerging to parents without prejudice to re-creation when more articles or subcategories on the topic are available. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Bahá'í Faith in Bangladesh

Suggest merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in Bangladesh to Category:Religion in Bangladesh and Category:Bahá'í Faith by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Created 8 months ago and still only contains main article Bahá'í Faith in Bangladesh. Suggest upmerging to parents without prejudice to re-creation when more articles or subcategories on the topic are available. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Bahá'í Faith in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Suggest merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:Religion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Category:Bahá'í Faith by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Created 5 months ago and still only contains main article Bahá'í Faith in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Suggest upmerging to parents without prejudice to re-creation when more articles or subcategories on the topic are available. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Bahá'í Faith in Costa Rica

Suggest merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in Costa Rica to Category:Religion in Costa Rica and Category:Bahá'í Faith by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Created 6 months ago and still only contains main article Bahá'í Faith in Costa Rica. Suggest upmerging to parents without prejudice to re-creation when more articles or subcategories on the topic are available. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Bahá'í Faith in Georgia (country)

Suggest merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in Georgia (country) to Category:Religion in Georgia (country) and Category:Bahá'í Faith by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Created 8 months ago and still only contains main article Bahá'í Faith in Georgia (country). Suggest upmerging to parents without prejudice to re-creation when more articles or subcategories on the topic are available. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Bahá'í Faith in Guyana

Suggest merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in Guyana to Category:Religion in Guyana and Category:Bahá'í Faith by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Created 3 months ago and still only contains main article Bahá'í Faith in Guyana. Suggest upmerging to parents without prejudice to re-creation when more articles or subcategories on the topic are available. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Bahá'í Faith in the Netherlands

Suggest merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in the Netherlands to Category:Religion in the Netherlands and Category:Bahá'í Faith by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Created 10 months ago and still only contains main article Bahá'í Faith in the Netherlands. Suggest upmerging to parents without prejudice to re-creation when more articles or subcategories on the topic are available. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Bahá'í Faith in Paraguay

Suggest merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in Paraguay to Category:Religion in Paraguay and Category:Bahá'í Faith by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Created 5 months ago and still only contains main article Bahá'í Faith in Paraguay. Suggest upmerging to parents without prejudice to re-creation when more articles or subcategories on the topic are available. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Bahá'í Faith in Pakistan

Suggest merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in Pakistan to Category:Religion in Pakistan and Category:Bahá'í Faith by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Created 9 months ago and still only contains main article Bahá'í Faith in Pakistan. Suggest upmerging to parents without prejudice to re-creation when more articles or subcategories on the topic are available. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Bahá'í Faith in Senegal

Suggest merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in Senegal to Category:Religion in Senegal and Category:Bahá'í Faith by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Created 5 months ago and still only contains main article Bahá'í Faith in Senegal. Suggest upmerging to parents without prejudice to re-creation when more articles or subcategories on the topic are available. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Bahá'í Faith in Uruguay

Suggest merging Category:Bahá'í Faith in Uruguay to Category:Religion in Uruguay and Category:Bahá'í Faith by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Created 6 months ago and still only contains main article Bahá'í Faith in Uruguay. Suggest upmerging to parents without prejudice to re-creation when more articles or subcategories on the topic are available. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 15 January 2010 (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.