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. The is a consensus to change, however this needs to be examined at the article level. So, editors are free to appropriately re categorize. If that results in this category being emptied, it should be brought back here for a review. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Montana did not exist as a territory until 1864. Montana does not exist in these years, and is split between various other jurisdictions. We should not use these categories for times before the place existed at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Oregon Territory has nothing to do with this. Most of what is today Montana was in Nebraska Territory at this time, although the two articles involved here seem to have been established in what was Washington Territory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Keep to allow users to find things that were established in the years in question in places that are currently in Montana. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:47, 2 July 2013 (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. we dont use weapon by war categories per previous discussions at CfD. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per precedent. Mangoe (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. These are performance by performer categories = WP:OC#PERF. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2013 (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:Framed for child pornography by malware[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.
Nominator's rationale: Single-article category containing only a case, not a person.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We generally do not categorize people by having been merely charged with a crime. To make this worse, it seems we will put in, at least per the guidelines, anyone who made this claim, even if the jury decides the evidence is that they were not so framed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One entry where there is a claim of being framed? This is a POV category. Especially with the emotive words included. Is there a category "Framed by malware" category that is so large? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The one article is about a person who claimed he had been framed: that was his defence, but he failed (partly for financial reasons) to establish that and was not exonerated. Accordingly, the category is based solely on the defendant's POV. This is not an adequate basis for a category. I did not follow the link allegedly to similar cases, but unless the case was particualrly notorious (and I do not know as I am in UK), I have to question whehte the article should not go to AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to nominate the article for deletion. I am not really convinced the matter was notable enough to have an article, but not motivated enough to actually try to delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2013 (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:administrative close: category was deleted as empty after sole article was deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in this category (and that is an autobiography nominated for speedy deletion). No apparent prospect that articles on individual film works will be created. —teb728tc 10:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment something is wrong here. Has the category been speedied, following the article? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2013 (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:keep, with leave for proposing renaming immediately. The BushrangerOne ping only 06:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is the only country based category of trucks. It is badly named. Does it cover trucks designed or build or assembled or operated in India? Category:Trucks is currently organized by the type of use the truck is intended for and we don't really need to change that. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe rename & clarify. The Indian truck world has until recently pretty much been its own thing, & this is defining. What would be wrong with Category:American trucks, or European etc? Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
""keep"" what is wrong in having this cat. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
split into manufacturer categories as is done with the rest of the world. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probable keep -- Until a decade or two ago, India had fairly closed economy. The contnets are Indian brands, and probably largely operating in India. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you look at the contents, there are two articles (the company and brand) for vehicles that were produced beginning in 2012. The other contents are 6 truck articles. I suppose the first two should be removed since they are not trucks. The company, by the way, is 100% owned by Daimler AG which would make their products German, right? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not if the trucks are designed and built in India. Subsidiary operations entirely within a given country are connected with that country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Add some text explaining inclusion criteria if necessary. "Foos of <country>" is normal category naming convention. Note: There's Category:Military trucks by country (created after this nom). DexDor (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2013 (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.
