Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 22
August 22
edit- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge. ∞Who?¿? 05:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This should be merged to Geography of Greece, as always. Darwinek 14:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. - choster 22:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/delete, Pavel Vozenilek 02:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. No argument. siafu 17:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, per nominator. IanManka 01:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 00:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Recreation. And we should make a central decision about this issue some time soon. Radiant_>|< 12:11, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy per nom, tag already placed. ∞Who?¿? 18:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was decided recently to delete it (which I vaguely remember it was) it should have been speedied with link to this vote. Pavel Vozenilek
- Keep IMO this refusal to acknowledge the significance of gender is one of Wikipedia's most misguided policies. Osomec 00:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an instance where persistent recreation argues that the decision to delete was over-hasty. Septentrionalis 21:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with Osomec and Septentrionalis. Incidentally has this specific category every been discussed for deletion before? If not, why have people been trying to delete it? -- RHaworth 10:21:10, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
- Keep. If there is a policy then this one is an exception. Meggar 18:34, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 00:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Former is ambiguous and while perhaps more popular may mean a variety of things. Marskell 09:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. ∞Who?¿? 18:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, K1Bond007 04:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.