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:Creating categories is not within the remit of CfD. The BushrangerOne ping only 08:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Commonly called the Asian Nobel Prize, the Shaw Prize laureates care certainly worthy of a category under Wikipedia. Check the recipients under "Shaw Prize." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond C. Watson, Jr. (talk • contribs) 20:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a proposal to start a category. It is not normal to put such proposals here. Just be bold and put one of the winners into the Category, then edit the category page to explain what it is about and then add the other winners to the category. Of course, it may be brought back here with a suggestion that it be renamed or deleted, but I do not think so. --Bduke(Discussion) 03:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We discourage award categories as WP:OCAT, for all but the most major categories such as Nobel Prizes. This is clearly not quite in the same rank, but does it come near? If so, a category would be justified. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2011 (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 per sole editor request. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Emptied after articles moved to category with new name. —Yk Yk Yktalk ~ contrib 17:50, 16 December 2011 (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. From the contents of these I saw nothing to merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created category, I assume created by a user because they added the category to their article and decided to fill in the redlink. The stated category definition doesn't appear to align to the Benchmarking article. Syrthiss (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – I have added several more all created for one article ... we don't invent new categories to showcase one article. Occuli (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NB – these categories were created for IMP³rove, which has now been deleted. Occuli (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all User's primary goal was establishing advert article. OhNoitsJamieTalk 15:25, 19 December 2011 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Using related in the title is always a concern, but add in the lack of any focus for this category and it seems to be an unneeded category for a collect of stuff. I find Category:Songs about aircraft an interesting member here. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fail to see how there is a lack of focus. It is media, related to aviation. Seems a pretty clear focus to me. - The BushrangerOne ping only 08:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is related an objective definition? If you want to rename to Category:Aviation media, that is a different question. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The focus might be clearer to some if there were more categories for the single entries to be sorted into. I would suggest Aviation Music, Aviation Poetry, Aviation Radio Series, and Aviation Plays. BrianCRJ 18:04, 20 December 2011 (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.
