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. – FayenaticLondon 00:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obstetrics is a completely different, but related, subject than Midwifery. They are two different occupations. And I think Obstetricians & midwives would like for their professional areas to remain distinct rather than merged as if they are the same. LizRead!Talk! 00:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The problematic redirect has been changed to a much more accurate article. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (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:Cinemas and movie theatres in China[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:speedy redirected as duplicate of existing category — and its only actual content was a subcategory which itself was also a duplicate of an existing category, so once that issue was corrected this was also an empty category. No prejudice against renomination for CFR if somebody feels strongly enough that the spelling should be "theatres" instead, but as currently constituted this falls under speedy criteria rather than needing debate. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. theatres × theaters, the second category already exists. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2015 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New category with no real merit and some songs, like those by Lifehouse and The Fray, shouldn't even be listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-WP:DEFINING intersection of unrelated characteristics. "Songs in one genre which also crossed over to another radio format" is not a thing we do in the category tree. Bearcat (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely subjective and trivial. One could almost imagining such a category on a dating site. Christian Grey wouldn't be in such a cat, methinks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a defining characteristic. Redundant or at least not beneficial to current scheme of Category:Songs by genre. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)23:48, 24 February 2015 (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.
