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.
I support the deletion Kosala was an ancient place which doesn't exist anymore. So it is bias if some people say themselves as people of kosala or something like that. --Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ)talk 07:12, 26 December 2014 (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:Banned political parties in the Basque country[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.
Oppose to the original request, but agree to Peterkingiron's alternative proposal per SFB's argument. --PanchoS (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2014 (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 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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom DISEman (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2014 (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. Mixed by is not the same as by. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The album is by DT8 Project. It would be helpful if the nom could refer to a previous consensus at cfd to categorise albums by an external criterion (namely Wikipedia's arbitrary choice of redirects) rather than by the name on the sleeve. Oculi (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or delete per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars below. Oculi (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lone article in the category isn't even for a DT8 Project album, but a various artist compilation album mixed by the artist. If that's a defining characteristic of this and other albums (such as those in the Fabric series), perhaps a new category scheme of "Albums mixed by Foo" should be created. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:08, 4 December 2014 (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:People from Cranesville, Pennsylvania[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 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is kind of a crazy category—a huge percentage of trials have corporate defendants. The category is nowhere close to being "fully populated"; if it were, there would likely be tens of thousands of articles in it. I can't see how this is a defining characteristic of the trials and cases that are categorized here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep or up merge to its parent Category:Case law by party or put into other such trial by party subcats. Nomination assertion has no obvious basis in fact. Most trials certainly do not involve corporations; they involve other business entities, individuals, criminal prosecutions, and no on Hmains (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I didn't say most trials, I said a "huge percentage", which is indeed the case. I suggest you take a look at the contents of Category:Case law in detail to try to get an idea of the number of articles we're talking about here. I've seen thousands of these over the past 24 hours alone. In any case: what is the point of this category? Why would we want to group together all cases with corporate defendants, regardless of whether they are cases in tort, contract, tax, criminal, property, or something else? And why only defendants? Why not plaintiffs, appellants, or respondents? Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Bodies corporate being sued is far too common to merit a category. Corporate manslaughter cases would be an exception, but I expect we have a categopry for that already. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most st of these are about an appeal where you would have a appellant and a respondent.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (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.
