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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Links only two articles and not enough articles to provide it. JJ98 (Talk) 22:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded and unlikely to grow any further. Enenth (talk) 07:02, 7 June 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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Links only one article and not enough links to provide it. JJ98 (Talk) 22:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly, I don't know why I created it if there's only one article. I was pretty new to Wiki back then, though, so it doesn't surprise me.--十八 02:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, delete it; even if it was used before, it isn't anymore. --Koveras☭ 07:31, 4 June 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.
If merged the article will still be within that structure, just not as an isolated, unexpandable single-entry category. Harley Hudson (talk) 10:07, 7 June 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:Merge to all parents. Dana boomer (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Most of the character category's contents were deleted at AFD and individual characters are unlikely to become notable, rendering this a small category with little or no chance of expansion. The category for the series is similarly small with little or no chance of expansion. Merger means that the meager contents are consolidated in a single category rather than spread out amongst three. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to all parents rather than just one in each case. - Fayenatic(talk) 13:14, 13 June 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:Merge. I question the logic of having a category for television season finales but regardless of the merit of that category there is no justification for a sub-category for Star Trek. Harley Hudson (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest re-listing along with the head category. I also question the logic for season finales. However, the various Star Trek series had about 30 seasons, so it's a big enough population to keep this as a sub-category, if the parent remains. - Fayenatic(talk) 09:10, 7 June 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.
Category:Star Trek television pilots and series finales[edit]
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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is no rational justification for a sub-category of TV episodes on the basis of being either the first or the last of a series within a franchise. Harley Hudson (talk) 12:52, 3 June 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:Merge to "transfer lists". Revisit title if an individual transfer gets an article. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge Both categories currently consist solely of lists. It's hard to imagine that this situation will change (this would require a full article on a particular transfer). The category could be recreated then but in the meantime, this is just an unnecessary container category. Pichpich (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would suggest merging to the former, just in case a full article on a particular transfer appears at some point. Bienfuxia (talk) 11:59, 11 June 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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I have been working on categorising the drug articles and set up Category:Drugs by country and Category:Drug control law by country. The current name does not fit in with what was already there and what I have set up. Note than drug control is invariably done with laws. While we may eventually need a category for drug control law in Burma a more useful category due to its wider inclusiveness is the one that I am suggesting. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, a good idea to broaden this out presently. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:56, 9 June 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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Tried to be bold with a more unambiguous name as there could be ambiguity with a "mortal album", but this was disputed and reverted; in addition, recent consensus has been to have the category name match the article name, in this case Mortal (band). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are no other notable artists called "Mortal" that have released albums. While I understand the rationale, there is no need for specification, as there is no reasonable cause for ambiguity.--3family6 (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Per discussion below.--3family6 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 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.
