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.
keep Grammar can be corrected and it's a more specific category compared to forced disappearances. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 02:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-empty category with an ungrammatical name. Even populated and given a better name, it would still be an unnecessary and redundant near-duplicate of Category:Forced disappearances. That one is already underpopulate, and full of small subcats that are also underpopulated. Duplicating this with even more specificity would be a bad idea. ReykYO! 08:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the category used to be populated when it was nominated but I do not remember which articles were in it. @Zanhe and It's gonna be awesome: do you know which articles were in this category? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while "forced disappearances" might suggest articles about the concept rather than people who have been subjected to the practice, it seems to be used as the latter not the former. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2018 (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.
Note to closing admin This is a HUGE category populated by a template. If merging, please place it on the manual page. Timrollpickering 10:51, 10 October 2018 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Pretty much identical scope? For any entry that cannot be dealt with as inside an identical scope should probably rather be subcategorised somewhere else? Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the scope is by no means identical. The purpose of Category:Catholic Church offices is to subcategorise articles relating to positions in the Church such as bishop, pope, abbot etc. Oculi (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The category should mainly consist of articles, most of the subcategories are not about a particular office (as a topic) so they may be moved to Category:Catholic Church organisation or to somewhere else in the tree of Category:Catholic Church. But that is a matter of reorganizing the content, not of reorganizing the categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure either. It is rather unclear. That's why I think this category merits some reconsidering. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2018 (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 associated with the New Deal[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:merge. (@Marcocapelle:, I will ask you to purge what needs to go.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete most of the content per WP:OCASSOC, most people in the category are government officials and presidential advisors in the period of the New Deal (who can be classified by their function/role); there are also a few opponents of the New Deal, but note we already have a List of critics of the New Deal. However, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the two subcategories should be moved into Category:New Deal. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. "Association with" is a bad categorization basis. Carlossuarez46 (talk)
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.
Delete I'm associated with chocolate, too. Yummmm... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Like Carlossuarez46, I also declare association with chocolate. -Zanhe (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both articles are in "History of chocolate". However looking at this tree, where are all the famous British chocolate manufacturers - Cadbury, Fry, Rowntree, Terry, etc? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2018 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 17#Category:Catholic Church offices. ℯxplicit 03:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
