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: Shall I quote 60s Dylan? "I don't write protest songs, I write love songs" Then we have the philosophical question, "what is love?" Should the category include patriotic songs, love of animals, love of cars, love of humanity. Actually it would be better to have an empty category for "songs not above love." In other words, this category serves no purpose, and that's without mentioning that most of these articles don't claim the song is about love. Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Granted, the category will be a large one, however, it is a worthy one. Love songs are the highest form of music, other than hymns and other sacred songs, and therefore the topic merits a category of its own. However, for it to be of value the inclusion of songs should not be broadly construed and strictly limited to romantic themes. For example, if a song such as I Love My Dog is added, it should be removed. Perhaps renaming the category "Love songs" would be helpful to this end. - JGabbard (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps rename to something like "Songs about romance"? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 04:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too many songs can be regarded as being about love, it is too trivial for categorization. Note that the current category is actually remarkably small, perhaps because it has mostly been populated by the occurrence of the word "love" in the title of the song, but that is not how we categorize anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad to be beneficial to the library. Category:Love Songs was deleted in a CfD in 2006 and the arguments to delete aren't too different. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me
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: All articles in the category have now been deleted - non-existent rugby union competition. Bcp67 (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2017 (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:Hong Kong corrupted government officials[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. For the record, the state (dis)establishment sub-categories were removed from these by changing a template.[1] Likewise, lists of state leaders were included via Template:SLBY/box. – FayenaticLondon 11:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete. Up to the year 1000, this tree doesn't add anything because the vast amount of the categories serve as a container category for subcats that are already contained in the Establishments and Disestablishments category of that year. In a few exceptions there is an article directly in the Politics category, we don't have to merge this to a year category however because these articles are already in a year by continent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most -- Most seem to be parents for "states and territories established in XXX", which will be better parented in a tree for that, and merged to decade categories for that and the xxx (year) category. However care needs to be taken that nothing is orphaned by this: the 63 item is an international treaty, which should be in a 1st century treaties category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it has been taken care of. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2017 (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:Eponymous category for a person without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant one; all that's here is the eponym, one relative and one article about a political family he was connected to. As always, it takes a significant amount of related content to justify one of these, not just two connected articles. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2017 (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:no consensus. – FayenaticLondon 13:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but unlike the parent article, there's no corresponding category for the mathematical concept to require disambiguation from. —swpbT 13:20, 20 July 2017 (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:Mayors of Kalyan-Dombivali Municipal Corporation[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: While mayors certainly sit on city governments, their title is "Mayor of City", not "Mayor of Complete Name of the City's Governing Body". (That is, a person is Mayor of Toronto, not Mayor of Toronto City Council; Mayor of London, not Mayor of the London Assembly; and on and so forth.) Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Are you sure? WP should accurately reflect local usage. There is no Mayor of London: there is an elected Mayor of Greater London (an executive post) and Lord Mayor of London, who is chairman of the City of London Corporation. I have no idea what the correct usage in Maharashtra is. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The website of the Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation isn't particularly helpful; it has a page for the Mayor, but all it gives is "Mr. Rajendra Deolekar Mayor Date of Joining :- Nov 2015 " and a photo. However, The Indian Express has a story about someone being elected "mayor of the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation". So this usage indeed does exist, but I can't opine regarding whether or not that's ordinary Indian usage; this search doesn't pull up resources that use other phrases for the same position, after all. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2017 (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.
