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. It is possible that a category with a more specific purpose could exist, but this categhory is not defining. Feel free to create, with appropriate content a better defined category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This category was requested at AFC/R and I created it on behalf of an IP editor. I considered that 'typically' categories such as these are nominated for deletion, but I feel that in this case the argument that it "is a form of WP:OC#AWARD" is no more persuasive a deletion rationale than: 1) as pointed out above, some vehicles are designed specifically for the race 2) winning the race is a notable achievement that Wikipedia readers may feasibly wish to search by category for 3) the policy sighted in the deletion rationale addresses 'over categorisation', meaning either an article that is over populated with categories or a category that is overpopulated with sub categories. The spirit of the policy is to avoid categorisation by pointless trivia. This is not pointless trivia categorisation and deleting this category based on the rationale given amounts to bureaucratic policy wonkery. Bellerophontalk to me22:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vehicles are often/usually mass produced (sometimes in millions); that a few have taken part in a particular race is hardly a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the model/range. If we categorize vehicles by which races they have been used in then where do we stop ? - e.g. the Volkswagen Touareg could be in several such categories (or many if a "Vehicles that took part in <race> in <year>" category structure was created). Note: categories such as "Gulf War vehicles" and "French Air Force guided missiles" were deleted because categorizing mass-produced items in that way can led to articles being in a lot of categories for non-defining characteristics. DexDor (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this would be a keep if there were articles on the individual cars that won the race, but the car models, this is not defining, much like James Bond cars or Bonnie & Clyde cars, and other cars by association. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a definitive feature of the car models. The most important reason is that usually the winning car model is a modification from the traditional production model (which is the main subject for the articles). However, a list of the winning models is a perfectly valid choice and a more useful one for the ready as categories can give no extra context, which is sorely needed in this instance (e.g. year of win, rider, etc.) We already have this list at Dakar Rally. There is no real need to include this as a navigational point for readers who are not looking at these vehicles from a Dakar Rally perspective. SFB13:17, 31 January 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.
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 Seems to make sense, for many journals it's difficult to discern whether they are on gender studies or on women's studies and the stub cats are not so large that this split-off is needed. --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. As always with stub categories, the rule is not "anything anytime anybody wants to create it", nor is it "any content category automatically gets its own standalone stubs subcat" — it's "must be preapproved by the stubsorting project on the basis of there being a minimum of sixty articles to file in it right off the top", and I see no evidence of that having happened. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 4 February 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.
