- 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. ( non-admin closure) sst✈ (discuss) 10:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Whether bacon, baked beans, baked potato, broccoli, cabbage etc are a side dish or not depends upon your culinary habits. Previous CFDs ( some examples) have established that this sort of category is not appropriate for basic foodstuffs. DexDor (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom and per precedent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support per precedent. Whether they are side or main dishes is rather too close to a POV issue. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support what is a side dish, main course, or snack varies. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be a POV category. Dimadick ( talk) 12:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Too arbitrary. Many people eat baked potatoes, bacon and other items on this list as a main dish. Many will eat apple sauce as an snack on its own. Some will eat it as a main dish, especially if under restricted diets. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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. ( non-admin closure) sst✈ (discuss) 10:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category which is a triple intersection of nationality and genre and LGBT-relatedness. This is not a helpful layer of categorization as such, nor is it one that even has any siblings at this level — and with just one film in it, it's a WP:SMALLCAT violation to boot. Delete, and return the film to Category:Philippine satirical films, Category:LGBT-related satirical films and Category:Philippine LGBT-related films as discrete categories rather than a triple-intersected one. Bearcat ( talk) 14:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete no WP:RS to show this is a genre, and suffers from the same problems all "-related" and "about" film categories: how much about the subject must it be for inclusion WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, and what WP:RS say it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge to all parent categories. No indication that this has scope of expansion. Dimadick ( talk) 12:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete no justification for such a fine category with one entry. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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. MER-C 20:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: There is only one theatre in Skien, Norway, i.e. no potential for expansion. Geschichte ( talk) 14:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge to all parents. The parent Category:Theatres in Norway by city and all its other sub-cats (except Oslo) should similarly be upmerged as none has more than two articles. The Oslo category should become a direct child of Category:Theatres in Norway. Except in Oslo there do not seem to be enough to merit them beiung split by city. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge to all parents, per Peterkingiron's proposal. Dimadick ( talk) 13:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge at least until another theatre opens or we get an article on a past theatre (I am not sure if such is even possible). John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: It's very hard to see why an editor would ever want to navigate to a page using this category. In effect this category is a list of the pages on which Template:Archive index is used (a similar list can be obtained using what-links-here). Categories like this do little more than add clutter to their parent category/ies. For info: Many pages-using-<template> categories have been previously deleted ( e.g. 2006 CFD). DexDor (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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. MER-C 13:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is an unusual category that groups talk pages of articles etc because they were of interest to a now-defunct wikiproject and puts them under Category:Wikipedia archives (which is not a normal place to have talk pages of articles). If the project is ever revived then a category with a name that's consistent with similar categories (i.e. "Category:WikiProject Brahmoism ...") could be created. If the category is deleted then Template:WikiProject Brahmoism should be changed. DexDor (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Brahmoism seems still to exist. However, this category if retained needs to be restructured to a more appropriate name. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There is a clear "defunct" message on top of the wikiproject page, I'm assuming that this is correct. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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. ( non-admin closure) sst✈ (discuss) 10:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Whether bacon, baked beans, baked potato, broccoli, cabbage etc are a side dish or not depends upon your culinary habits. Previous CFDs ( some examples) have established that this sort of category is not appropriate for basic foodstuffs. DexDor (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom and per precedent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support per precedent. Whether they are side or main dishes is rather too close to a POV issue. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support what is a side dish, main course, or snack varies. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be a POV category. Dimadick ( talk) 12:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Too arbitrary. Many people eat baked potatoes, bacon and other items on this list as a main dish. Many will eat apple sauce as an snack on its own. Some will eat it as a main dish, especially if under restricted diets. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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. ( non-admin closure) sst✈ (discuss) 10:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category which is a triple intersection of nationality and genre and LGBT-relatedness. This is not a helpful layer of categorization as such, nor is it one that even has any siblings at this level — and with just one film in it, it's a WP:SMALLCAT violation to boot. Delete, and return the film to Category:Philippine satirical films, Category:LGBT-related satirical films and Category:Philippine LGBT-related films as discrete categories rather than a triple-intersected one. Bearcat ( talk) 14:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete no WP:RS to show this is a genre, and suffers from the same problems all "-related" and "about" film categories: how much about the subject must it be for inclusion WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, and what WP:RS say it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge to all parent categories. No indication that this has scope of expansion. Dimadick ( talk) 12:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete no justification for such a fine category with one entry. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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. MER-C 20:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: There is only one theatre in Skien, Norway, i.e. no potential for expansion. Geschichte ( talk) 14:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge to all parents. The parent Category:Theatres in Norway by city and all its other sub-cats (except Oslo) should similarly be upmerged as none has more than two articles. The Oslo category should become a direct child of Category:Theatres in Norway. Except in Oslo there do not seem to be enough to merit them beiung split by city. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge to all parents, per Peterkingiron's proposal. Dimadick ( talk) 13:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge at least until another theatre opens or we get an article on a past theatre (I am not sure if such is even possible). John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: It's very hard to see why an editor would ever want to navigate to a page using this category. In effect this category is a list of the pages on which Template:Archive index is used (a similar list can be obtained using what-links-here). Categories like this do little more than add clutter to their parent category/ies. For info: Many pages-using-<template> categories have been previously deleted ( e.g. 2006 CFD). DexDor (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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. MER-C 13:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is an unusual category that groups talk pages of articles etc because they were of interest to a now-defunct wikiproject and puts them under Category:Wikipedia archives (which is not a normal place to have talk pages of articles). If the project is ever revived then a category with a name that's consistent with similar categories (i.e. "Category:WikiProject Brahmoism ...") could be created. If the category is deleted then Template:WikiProject Brahmoism should be changed. DexDor (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Brahmoism seems still to exist. However, this category if retained needs to be restructured to a more appropriate name. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There is a clear "defunct" message on top of the wikiproject page, I'm assuming that this is correct. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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.