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/rename as specified. MER-C 12:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think the general consensus is that we don't include a "the" for the territories. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merging should definitely take place, either this way or reversed. I don't have an opinion about the direction of merge or about the rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as before. Although it was mentioned before that 'the' is needed to disambiguate, the territories in India are just Indian territories. kennethaw88 • talk 04:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support we avoid use of the article in such cases. Indian Territory was not even an organized territory, so "the" is probably misleading.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 14 August 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:1932 establishments in Saint Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
St Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla was one of four presidencies which formed the federal colony of the Leeward Islands [1], the others were Antigua, Montserrat and BVI. Tim! (talk) 06:50, 26 July 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:Men Universe Model
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. MER-C 13:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Men Universe Model was recently deleted for failling GNG so it's pointless having a category for something when it doesn't have an article anymore, Being Kept would only serve to confuse those who perhaps may want to know about "Men Universe Model". –Davey2010Talk 14:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IP editor. LizRead!Talk! 19:55, 25 July 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:Jes Holtsø
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. MER-C 13:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I don't think an eponymous category such as this one is not needed just for an article (that probably should be redirected anyway) about a character this person plays. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are just two articles concerning this Danish actor, not enough to warrant an eponymous category. LizRead!Talk! 19:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:OCEPON with no objection to recreating if more content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- My guess is that we would only get more content if we allowed performace by performer categorisation (which we do not. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 26 July 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.