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.
Merge as proposed. The distinction exists but it's not that important and it doesn't justify isolating these two articles in a subacategory where they'll be harder to find. Pichpich (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2012 (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:Delete only one member in the category and although it's conceivable that this category could grow, I don't think this would constitute a defining characteristic, especially if the origin is restricted to YouTube and not other web content platforms. If kept, the name has to change. I would propose Category:Television series first broadcast on YouTube. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly on the basis that there probably aren't enough of these at the moment to justify a category. Even if there were, it would need a better name, like the one suggested by the nominator. Robofish (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A better name can be found if there come to be multiple articles that fit this idea, and the wonder is we do not even have to say "delete without prejudice".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2012 (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:Delete The category is named after a youth theatre in New Hampshire. While I'm sure every participant and every teacher has fond memories of their experience there, it does not constitute a significant part of their career and in fact Andy's Summer Playhouse is only linked in one of the 33 biographies in the category currently. (The exception is Elizabeth Orton Jones but Andy's Summer Playhouse was a significant part of her life and this was noted in many sources) If kept, the category should at least be renamed to avoid the slash, for example Category:People associated with Andy's Summer PlayhousePichpich (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per nom. The fact that this isn't mentioned in most of these biographies shows that it isn't significant enough to categorise them by. Robofish (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this does not seem to fit the standard for use. I shudder to think what some people's category counts would be if we categorized them by ever small playhouse they worked with ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2012 (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.
Delete - I think "scandal" is probably too subjective for categorising by. And looking over Category:Scandals, reminds me other recent CfD concerning "alleged" police brutality. I think a group nom may be a good next step in the near future. - jc3720:24, 6 September 2012 (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.
Oppose Even though the rationale is sound, I don't think it's needed. The other Robert Abels are an author, cricketer and NASCAR driver. In the unlikely event one of them directed a film, then yes, the rename would be needed. Or the other rationale of another Robert Abels being a film director, but I think it's explained by the hatnote on the category. LugnutsAnd the horse18:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – it is standard practice to add the disambiguation in the category title, as it removes the need to agonise over the likelihood of other Abels ever directing films. Oculi (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2012 (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:Merge Sassocorvaro has less than 3500 inhabitants so the category is likely to remain quite small. The article will be easier to find in the larger category. Pichpich (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2012 (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:Delete Obviously, the use of the word "notable" in the title is a fatal flaw as it renders the category completely subjective. There's nothing to merge since the articles are already in the appropriate "Foo emigrants to Chile" category. Pichpich (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure my sentence was that clear but I oppose the merge because the articles are already diffused in the appropriate subcategories. Pichpich (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then diffuse where neccesary. Immigrants to x is not a container category per se. We do not diffuse all immigrants, only when there are enough to justify doing so. At least in theory our small x emigrants to y categories are because at present most people who emigrated who have articles in wikipedia have not been categorized based on this. Thus, immigration categories are at present in build mode.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2012 (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:Upmerge as it's unlikely that this category will ever grow. There's no sense in isolating this template in its own little category. Pichpich (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2012 (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:Rename to the wider scope. While the sculptures currently in the category are indeed outdoor sculptures, Smith did not exclusively produce public art. If some of his "indoor" sculptures ever get articles, we probably wouldn't want a separate parent category. Moreover, Smith would be the only one with an "outdoor sculptures" category which may make it harder for readers to find the category. Pichpich (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think I would; the idea that large sculptures produced in small editions (as Smith's mostly are) are specifically created to be either inside or outside works is pretty dubious imo. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2012 (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.
Comment. Very witty. The Pentathlon plot does indeed start and finish at two different Olympics, but the plot also covers, Gold medals, East Germany, Neo-Nazis, Terrorism, Alcoholism, Los Angeles, Peace Rallies, Rabbis, Olympic trainers - if the plot synopsis was longer I am sure the film could be categorised as being "about" many many other things. I am convinced that "about" is not the way to go on these sort of categories. Equally, if we allow anything to be added that mentions in passing Olympic Games we might as well just delete the category for all the encyclopedic worth it would have.Category:Olympic Games in film is more definative, but I daresay a better solution can be found. I do like your suggestion of text in the category, but who reads it before the edit war about what should be included? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I would not oppose Films set at the Olympic Games, how does the nominator feel about that? Does it fit with other film categories? it's "x about y" that I object to, meaningless, open to the widest possible interpretation and undefining in context for categories. Molehills about 20 feet high! --Richhoncho (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Having read the above, my first choice would be the slightly clunky Category:Films set at the Olympic Games. It narrows the scope a little bit and to a certain extent, it clarifies it (in the sense that there's a limit to how bad of an edit war people can have about where a film is set). My second choice is Category:Films about the Olympic Games whose scope is quite clear but also much narrower and in a sense less interesting. Third choice is Category:Olympic Games in film which is so broad and vague that the category would be drowned in films that include a scene where someone watching the pentathlon on TV. 00:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
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:mergeCategory:Opposition to Islam to Category:Anti-Islam. There was a strong consensus in favour of merging these two categories, but no clear consensus in favour of which direction the merge should follow. So the outcome which best reflects the discussion is to proceed with a merge, and let further discussion reconsider the name if desired. In the absence of agreement, it seems to me that the most persuasive argument was that to adopt the format of the other sub-categories of Category:Opposition to religion, which is "Anti-Foo". Please note that since there is no consensus for this particular name, editors should free to immediately nominate Category:Anti-Islam for renaming, whether on its own or as part of a wider group nomination to include Category:Anti-Christianity, Category:Anti-Judaism etc. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Opposition to Islam. These two categories are impossible to distuinguish from one another, and adding category blurbs instructing that one or the other is to be interpreted as Islamophobia and discrimination, prejudice, etc. is nothing but terribly confusing (see talk page and edit history of both categories, i.e. Category:Opposition to Islam(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). There is an existing hierarchy, Category:Opposition to religion, wherein Islam has its place along the other major world religions. If a subset is needed for particularly vile and unreasoned opposition (e.g. persecution), that might be created as long as it's not a re-creation of the recently deleted Category:Islamophobia. But first thing's first. Let's get rid of the nominated category. __meco (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is in line with the naming of the similar categories for other religions. I'm open to a general renaming, but until then we should try to keep the category names consistent. Also please note that Category:Opposition to Islam is intended as a non-offensive (but obviously very confusing) replacement for Category:Islamophobia so they should obviously not be merged. // Liftarn (talk)
Rename, but to what? It would have to be to something that conveys the appropriate meaning, not simply usurping neutral terms which has been attempted with the present category as well as Category:Opposition to Islam, as the edit histories of these two categories shows without the shadow of a doubt. __meco (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Originally it was called islamophobia, but since not all islamophobes embrace the term I guess it's out of the question. Something like "anti-Muslim sentiment" could work. It shows the distinction from being against Islam, but is still neutral enough to be accepted. // Liftarn (talk)
Keep. I agree that this should be merged with Category:Opposition to Islam, but I think 'Anti-Islam' is the better title and the merge should be in the opposite direction: that category should be merged into this one. Whichever way it goes though, we don't need both categories. The description text on Category:Opposition to Islam attempts to separate them by stating that that category is for 'prejudice or racism against, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims', while this one is for 'non-racist criticism of the religion of Islam'. But I think that's splitting hairs, or at least making a distinction that's too subjective for the blunt tool of categories: there's no objective way of determining whether a particular manifestation of anti-Islam behaviour was motivated by racism or not. Robofish (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we base it on what reliable sources say. // Liftarn (talk)
Delete the category claims that the Spanish inquistion is "anti-Islam". This seems odd when it focused more of its energies on crypto-Jews than Muslims. This is functioning as a super container category to link things which really are only vaguely related.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When a page is being merged into another page, that page is usually tagged. Since above people have suggested merging pages into this page, it seems that such mergers should be tagged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2012 (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.
Delete I am the creator. I created it in error while trying to create a Wikimedia category. I tried to delete it but couldn't (evidently). Fine with me. If more articles eventually emerge it can be recreated at that time. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2012 (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.
Delete - not a very useful way of categorising songs; these songs have essentially nothing in common with each other except in the loosest sense. Robofish (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (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:Ambassadors of France to countries in Africa
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.
Oppose The policy cited is for categories with no potential for growth; these categories may certainly grow as additional bios are expanded. Additionally, having four or even three members of a category seems robust enough even without growth. --Esprqii (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support at least for the most obvious cases. It's a little hard to draw a line but certainly those with only one or two articles should be upmerged. I would prefer merging all of them but if there's a consensus to spare the ones with three or four biographies, I'll go along. Pichpich (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2012 (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: Only four articles (one about his political positions could be added as well), but easily navigable through a footer. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯07:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are three articles primarily about this person, and the other two currently in the category have a strong enough connection to stay. – FayenaticLondon08:37, 19 August 2012 (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:Merge. There is no explanation of what is meant by "companion media" and there are no other parents of this category. Tim! (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Doctor Who-related media. I would have fallen for the same misunderstanding as Vegaswikian. I don't support Category:Doctor Who media, as books & TV series are "media" but clearly they are primary sub-topics here and should not be moved lower down the hierarchy. I don't know of a very clear precedent for this sort of thing; Trekkies have Category:Star Trek in other media but that's not quite right either. It's spin-off media, but we can't use that term because it's not media about the spinoff series from Doctor Who! The strong point of Tim's original suggestion is that this is a sub-cat for "other media", and we don't do categories for "other"; but it's well-enough populated to separate it from the top category, and I think using "DW-related media" might just work. – FayenaticLondon22:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My opinion at this time is that there is clear consensus to keep this as a subcategory. I made an early suggestion. However I am not stuck with that name. If there is a better name, I will accept the closers choice. I don't see the different opinions on a name as a reason for the closer to not pick one. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2012 (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: It is unclear to me that we should have a category that attempts to have all the music from Glee in it. Clearly, an album category is warranted. There's probably a value to a category that contains song lists and original songs like "Get It Right." But I can't see a reason to have "Don't Stop Believin'" in this category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I frankly don't see the purpose in changing the category. The obvious reason to having "Don't Stop Believin'" in the category is that the Glee version of the song went Platinum: it's the biggest seller of any Glee single, and it's something of an anthem for the show. To structure the categories so it can't be included would seem to subvert the entire purpose of having categories. (I don't believe "Cry" needs to included, but that's neither here nor there.) If the category changes to albums only, it orphans the song lists and the three original songs, and possibly the EPs as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a different case, as a few songs have been originated by the show, charted, and in one case became a Gold record. If the albums are worth categorizing, then the original songs certainly are, and perhaps those few significant other ones (Platinum or Gold records) as well. I agree that the simple act of a cover and Hot 100 charting is not appropriate usage of categories, given that Glee has over 200 at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2012 (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:Delete. This is a category of people who have only one testicle. I don't think that's a worthwhile means of categorizing people. There are certainly BLP concerns here. We already have Category:Testicular cancer survivors, which would cover a lot of the same ground. Zagalejo^^^03:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, which is why it demands its own category of recognition, distinct from Category:Amputees and the one you have mentioned. To get rid of categories sends the wrong message of amputees, monorchids, castrated people, etc being not acknowledged, not counted, and not respected for their relative uniqueness and achievement of notabilityOxycut (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How's that disrespectful? I've ridden on a unicycle and never objected to being identified as a solowheeler. Offhand, informal or evocative terminology isn't an attempt to insult but it can aid identification and means of understanding for the uninitiated, that's all.Oxycut (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately he's dead but I would just like to imagine Bruce Lee's reaction when you come up to him and say "wazzup soloballer!". But to get back to the point, if you can't see how "soloballer" is wildly inappropriate, I'm not sure I can continue this conversation. Pichpich (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Lee gets even greater respect because of what he did, he did as a solo. Involvement in combat sports puts one at risk of going from a duo to a solo, and the fact of a person being solo is not just trivia. It's a risk factor which is the enhansed risk of going from a solo to a nil. If you don't acknowledge Bruce's status as solo, it's a diminishment of the full developed character of his personhood and of the fullness of his achievement. That goes for any solo. What it bespeaks us to avoid is duonormativity and solo-erasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxycut (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't distort this. It's about having a testicle, and that clearly defines the individual as a male. Where is this criteria of 'defining' pulled from? George W Bush has more than 50 categories and only one is his defining characteristic that he's been US President.Oxycut (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just made an OTHERSTUFF argument about nonexistence of a category, without acknowledging that we indeed have male catgories for dancers, actors, comedians, athletes, etc . We have Category:Tang Dynasty eunuchs. The issue of the testicle is not seen to be irrelevant, but strangely the standards are changed when the count is not as many as two and not as few as zero.Oxycut (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not clear the category serves any purpose other than trivia. WP:BLPCAT applies, I think, in that just because someone has this condition doesn't mean it is relevant to their notability. No, it's not a religious belief or sexual orientation, but...it also isn't necessarily related to notability either. Frank | talk 21:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then count him as another head of state along with the martial artist, sportspeole, Senator, Opposition Leader &c that are in the groupOxycut (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being intrinsically a contentious categorization for which strong sourcing would be absolutely required, and is absent. Collect (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typically, this is not a defining characteristic. It should be easy to understand that having only one leg often defines part of your life whereas having only one testicle (or one kidney for that matter) typically does not. Pichpich (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you admit, then, that its even mentioned (not as trivia) that Kerry Packer went solokidney and Senator Frank Church went soloball. It's a big thing in a person's life and it can make the front page of the newspaper.Oxycut (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCAT admits things "relevant to [a person's] public life or notability" under a standard of "public self-identification" when it comes to religious adherence and sexuality— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Take the example of Lance Armstrong. It's not -defining- that he fits within Category:People from Plano, Texas because he's also categorised as being from two other places. Him being in Category:American adoptees also in no way establishes his notability to have an article here. Him being a duo who got to place sixth at the Olympics in 1996 when aged 25 is not even half his story. The larger part is how he became solo and then achieved his greatest victories and then established the Lance Armstrong Foundation which supports other solos. It's not trivia. In many public talks he has owned up to his solo status as a key part of his inspirational tale. Oxycut (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet for some reason, Lance Armstrong's introduces himself as "I'm Lance Armstrong and I'm a cancer survivor" [1] not "I'm Lance Armstrong and I only have one testicle". (and I'm pretty sure he rarely says "I'm Lance Armstrong and I'm a soloballer"). Actually if you can find the words "we support solos" or "we support soloballers" anywhere in the publications of the Lance Armstrong Foundation (which by the way is not focused on testicular cancer only), I promise to reconsider. Frankly you're just trolling at this stage. Pichpich (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—As I have stated in the Sept. 7 discussion on the duplicate Category:Monorchism: "The fact that various men have been born with a single testicle, had one surgically excised for a variety of reasons (torsion, agenesis, herniae, etc.), or suffered scrotal trauma is not defining for those men. The strong BLP issues and RS issues associated with these three categories add additional problems." Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2012 (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.
