Category talk:British military occupations

CFD

I for one would be grateful if you could explain how you came to the conclusion there was no consensus to delete when the comments were as follows:

Myself: Delete
Narson: Delete
Pfainuk: Delete
Johnbod: Delete
Berks911: Delete

DonaldDuck: Keep

Peterkingiron:Rename
LapsedPacficist:Rename

Comments about the category being vague and ill-defined:

roundhouse0:
Otto4711
Cgingold

One person, the originator, voting to keep the category, 5:1 voting to delete and 2 voting to rename - how is that no consensus to delete? Justin talk 07:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page - no need to repeat your question here. Bencherlite^Talk 09:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem with your decision, is that the category was created by User:DonaldDuck as an attack category and originally included wildly inappropriate articles such as the BAOR and the Falkland War. In addition to creating the category, he has also been deleting a similar category from articles related to the Soviet Army; namely Soviet Occupations. Its clear that he is acting with a POV agenda and the creation of this category is part of that. Of its own right, it doesn't seem worthy of categorisation since it contains very few articles. Its vague and ill-defined, could I for instance add Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy? So on several policy grounds its worthy of deletion, there was a consensus to do so even if you ignored Narson's comment, there was several arguments why it should be deleted, there was no real argument for it to be kept - at best it should be renamed. Justin talk 09:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

unindent

Requested a deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 24#Category:British Occupations Justin talk 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)