Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 3

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< September 2 September 4 >

September 3

edit

Category:Musical Instruments of Nepal

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Nepalese musical instruments, convention of Category:Musical instruments by nationality. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Brotherhood of Evil Mutants members

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brotherhood of Evil Mutants members to Category:Brotherhood of Mutants members

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Writers of books about films

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated. - EurekaLott 00:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Writers of books about films into Category:Film critics

  • Merge Looking at the previous debate it is very clear that this one was closed incorrectly, and that the result declared by User:Kbdank71 did not represent consensus or anything close to it. In fact it had the support of only one or two people out of nine. I cannot see how the decision taken can possibly be justified. Making it a subcategory of Category:Film critics just makes things worse. Golfcam 19:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Film writers or Category:Film studies writers or some such. Not all those who write about film are critics; some are historians, some are how-to, some are making-of, etc. I admit the name is clunky, and that someone jumped the gun on its creation, but we do need the category, whatever the name. (It should go under Category:Non-fiction writers alongside Category:Film critics, not as a sub-cat.)
  • Merge per nom. One article was about someone who only wrote celebrity biographies, and that only leaves one other person. Having more than one category for people who write about cinema seems ill-advised as it can only lead to confusion and inconsistency and I don't see why category:Film critics can't be the one category. Osomec 09:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. One category is sufficient, in line with category:Literary critics. Choalbaton 13:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Cat:Film writers per anon. contributer above. See Jared Brown as an example of a film writer who is not a critic. --Blainster 16:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. All film writers are critics - a "critic" is not merely a subspecies of journalist. Merchbow 22:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Kbdank71's closing looks correct to me.--Mike Selinker 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Michael 01:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:List of people with eating disorders

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename --WinHunter (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People with eating disorders, or Delete. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - "List" in title is redundant. --Cswrye 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Osomec 10:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or delete per nom. David Kernow 02:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not primary or secondary characteristics, especially seeing list of the actors. Based on dubious reports in tabloids. Pavel Vozenilek 17:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. Michael 01:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Macedonian poems

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Republic of Macedonia poems, due to the Macedonian problem. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the convention. --Cswrye 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be named after the language. Political entities have little to do with poems. Pavel Vozenilek 17:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedian cricket fans

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I de-capped everything per the article names. Of course, let me know if there’s another approach you’d suggest.--Mike Selinker 17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all nothing to do with the encyclopedia -Doc 19:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, there is no way we're going to delete only the cricket categories.--Mike Selinker 20:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, per nom. Nearly any naming convention is better than the way it is now. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to conform to policy. --Cswrye 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE: added Black Caps.--Mike Selinker 14:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Archaeological sites in Britain

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted --Kbdank71 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Archaeological sites in Britain as Category:Archaeological sites in the United Kingdom as per naming convention Mal 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment isn't there already a CFD underway about this one? I suggest Speedy close and defer to the previous discussion. - Jc37 03:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as a duplicate listing. Osomec 10:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment'. Osomec, it was you yourself who suggested that this wasn't eligible for speedy. I couldn't find it the other day, so I thought it had been closed. For those two reasons, I listed it here. I see there has been response on the speedy page though. My apologies for any inconvenience. --Mal 18:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Old bands with new lead singers

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It's an interesting topic, but I think it would work better as a list article. Do you agree? -- ProveIt (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Tuskegee Airmen, Inc. Chapters

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a list, not a category. Content should be listed within Tuskegee Airmen, Inc. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per nom - Jc37 03:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per nom. The list might be longer than the article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States energy legislation

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a little premature. At the moment it serves only as an extra parent to Category:United States federal energy legislation. It may be back later if someone finds or creates some state legislation articles. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Anti-Atheism

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • The criteria for inclusion in this category are vague at best. Does merely advocating that Christianity or some other religion is true make a person "Anti-Atheism"? That criterion is far too weak to support a meaningful category. NatusRoma | Talk 14:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have an article for the term, and Google returns few hits for it (with or without the hyphen). This is clearly supposed to be a cat from people, but its criteria is vague, and any attempt to formalize it would probably result in a huge unwieldy category. ×Meegs 18:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 1. the people and organizations in this category have gone on public record with their opposition to atheism. if you want I can provide quotes from them all - though that seems superfluous.2.[1]. Naturally people would consider category:Anti-Semitism or category:Anti-Catholicism bigotry, but appearantly, people can bash atheists and get away with it, the same way they do gypsies or the amish. it seems atheism is a minority that's okay to discriminate against. --Philo 19:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is ridiculous. Religious people are opposed to atheism, but that doesn't mean there should be a category, and the selection reflects fads, current affairs and POV rather than any serious and consistent selection criteria. It is not a respectable category that deserves a place in an encyclopedia, but a reflection of Wikipedia's sometimes shambolic lack of editorial control. Golfcam 19:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - christians, for example, don't believe in islam but they are tolerant towards muslims. however, certain people could be anti-islam. religious people can be tolerant of atheists, or they can be anti-atheism. --Philo 14:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The inclusion of Dubya exposes the lack of seriousness behind this category. Twittenham 21:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For me it's the double negative I find troubling. Anti- Anti- theist. - Jc37 03:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't represent a clear and distinct movement. Choalbaton 13:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Pavel Vozenilek 17:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, There are people noted for their belief atheism should be illegal or condemned. Thomas More's Utopia advocated religious tolerance, but banned atheism. Although much of it was satire the disdain for atheists is generally agreed to be sincere. That said the category, if kept, should be renamed as this term is a nn neologism. Possibly it could be named Atheist-rights opponents or "Critics of atheism."--T. Anthony 16:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no viable method of restricting this category to the most relevant articles. Merchbow 22:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Michael 03:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:List of music videos using animation

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional category for Anuj Nair. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWhere else shall it be included when it is in fact a music video made using 3D animation ? What is listed is indeed facts and if that means promotional category,no artist from anywhere in this world can have his name entered here . Anuj Nair created the first 3D animated music video from India and it appeared on major music channels including MTV Nonstop Hits and MTV Most wanted.What else is expected to have an entry in the Category:'List of Music Videos using animation',when it is a full fledged 3D animated music video? Sorry to say,it gives one reason for suspicion that it is deleted from an eligible category because the entry is of Asian/Indian origin -- Jaitha (talk)
  • I would include it in List_of_music_videos_using_animation. It doesn't seem like that interesting a category to me, but it's a fine list. Delete.-Mike Selinker 19:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of music videos using animation is better than a category could be, as it allows us to include songs that do not have their own articles and to list additional information about each entry, such as the the name of the musical act and the animation technique. Details about Anuj Nair's video for "My Love for You" belong in the song's article, My Love for You, not in the preamble of a category. Please do not assume that there is anti-Asian bias in Provelt's nomination; I can assure you there is not. Delete. ×Meegs 19:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Too broad to be useful. Twittenham 21:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we should not categorize by type of music video. --musicpvm 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and then Delete - Jc37 03:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember,nobody will search for something they do not want to know.Nobody is going to care for what he/she is not interested.We search the topic in an encyclopedia only if we wish to know about it.Nobody can force anybody to see what he/she does not want to see- Jaitha
  • Delete and listify if appropriate. --Cswrye 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in current state, per nom; Category:Music videos using animation might be viable. David Kernow 02:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Created for improper reasons and not useful. Merchbow 22:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:List of power pop musicians

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another promotional category for Anuj Nair. -- ProveIt (talk)
  • Delete. There's already a useful list which this person can go on: List_of_power_pop_musicians.--Mike Selinker 19:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being an Indian and a fan of Anuj Nair,knowing his abilities and goodname,I humbly thank Mike Selinker for his valuable suggestion.Wish he will suggest more such categories.Hope the author takes notice. -- Jaitha (talk)
    • To be clear, I didn't suggest a category. I suggested a list. The category should be deleted.--Mike Selinker 22:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sincerely apologise to Mike Selinker for the comments I made out of my misunderstanding.Sorry Mike,Keep the good work.--Jaitha
    • Don't worry about it. We all want the same thing: articles categorized in a useful way. It's just a matter of figuring out what that is, and with musicians, we think we've got a pretty good idea.--Mike Selinker 23:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Misuse of the category system. Twittenham 21:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and Anuj Nair isn't "power pop". --musicpvm 21:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Anuj Nair isn't "power pop", musicpvm is too ignorant to comment.Better we avoid blank comments of such nature- --Jaitha
    • Please see WP:NPA. How am I ignorant when your sockpuppet is the one that created these ridiculous categories? If he is "power pop", provide a source. If you google "Anuj nair power pop", the only result is Wikipedia. --musicpvm 18:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it mean that names and words that does not yield result in Google search does not exist? Please remember that mass media is not just online publications.If the 'sockpuppet' who created the category is at fault there's no need to comment that the artist is not "power pop" -- Jaitha 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and then Delete - with two of them (see the preceeding CFD), it definitely is starting to look like individual promotion. (And we just were talking about deletion of the individual supermodel cats...) - Jc37 03:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anuj Nair is recognised in India as well as in international community.It would be a good idea to go through the references very carefully before suggesting anything.His album has appeared in MTV,Chanel V and also featured in the reputed magazine 'The Week'.Apart from India,the articles about him has appeared in prestigious newsletter in Arab countries- --Shanthi
    • No one is suggesting he isn't noteworthy, Shanthi. What people are saying here is that these four categories are not good uses of the category system.--Mike Selinker 09:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This reads more like an article than a category. --Cswrye 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in current state, per nom; another misunderstanding as to the nature of categories. David Kernow 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Kanto Region Rail Stations

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kanto Region Rail Stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, This was up for cfd earlier here and ended up as no consensus, although no one really liked it the way it was. This category is currently useless, since it's just a convoluted way of stating which prefectures (and Tokyo) belong in the Kanto Region (without including all of them). It only contains three subcategories, all of which also belong to the parent category Category:Railway stations in Japan. Bobet 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, find a way to distinguish it from the Pokemon variant. I thought this was a WP:PCP article. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 16:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it too late to add these to the list?
Both are also "regions", which just contain the prefectures listed in the parent cat. Stuffing all of the prefectures into regions is not a good idea, as there is not a 100% accepted definition for some of the regions (these two islands, are an exception) and the regional names are not familiar outside of Japan. Neier 23:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:List of albums (A)

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Exists only to promote Simple Truth and Anuj Nair. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nomenclature doesn't make sense to me.--Mike Selinker 19:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The album Simple Truth already has its own article. ×Meegs 19:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Malformed and redundant. Twittenham 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and now we have three categories about Anuj Nair. - Jc37 03:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Cswrye 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another misunderstanding. Perhaps the Welcome Wagon (or the like) needs to visit their creator/s...?  David Kernow 02:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need for this being a cat. Michael 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:List of Singer-songwriter

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Singer-songwriters, created only to promote Anuj Nair. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Postwar films about World War Two

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, empty --Kbdank71 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Postwar films about World War Two (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, This category is imprecisely named. Either it was intended to be a category for films about after WWII (in which case it's never been used for that purpose), or it is meant for WWII films made after the end of the war. If that was the case, there is a category for films made during the war so it is not necessary to have a category for films made after the end of the war as their absence from the "during the war" category automatically makes them postwar films. Mallanox 13:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the opposite of Category:Films made during World War Two BUT form sub-categories within it, one each for 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s. [[User:Neddyseagoon|Neddyseagoon | [[Usertalk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 18:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you really want subcats, they could be made in the existing category of World War II films. The would be no need for them to be sub-sub cats. Mallanox 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Elle Macpherson

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another personal supermodel category. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No model that ever lived is important enough to have a personal category. Golfcam 19:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Jc37 03:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 03:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Works of fiction featuring revenants and zombies

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works of fiction featuring revenants and zombies to Category:Zombies and revenants in fiction

  • Rename, Awkwardly named category; changing to comply with similar (Vampires in fiction). Nick Curtis 13:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 02:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - Jc37 03:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Cswrye 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Palendrom 21:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Horror fiction magazines

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Horror fiction magazines into Category:Horror magazines

  • Merge, Both categories are comprised of magazines that primarily deal in fiction and Horror magazines has a sub-category (Horror journals) for non-fiction works. Nick Curtis 13:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Cswrye 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. David Kernow 03:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Michael 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:My Network TV

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:My Network TV to Category:MyNetworkTV
Category:My Network TV affiliates to Category:MyNetworkTV affiliates
Category:My Network TV shows to Category:MyNetworkTV shows
Category:My Network TV stubs to Category:MyNetworkTV stubs
Category:Intrastate My Network TV Templates to Category:Intrastate MyNetworkTV Templates
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Islam and controversy

edit

and

Category:Mormonism and controversy

edit

and

Category:Christianity and controversy

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islam and controversy to Category:Islam-related controversies
Category:Mormonism and controversy to Category:Mormonism-related controversies
Category:Christianity and controversy to Category:Christianity-related controversies
  • Rename [all]; [a]wkward name[s]. Tim! 09:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename [all] - The proposed name makes more sense. --Cswrye 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename [all] per nom, although perhaps Category:Controversies related to X is a format with wider scope...?  David Kernow 03:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Brings (or will bring) practically unrelated topics under umbrella of undefined term "controversy". There isn't a single thing in religion that is not controversial to someone. Pavel Vozenilek 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but my hope would be that there's some consensus on identifying and reporting significant ("notable") controversies... Regards, David Kernow 05:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately there do not seem to be many such articles. Mangoe 21:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The Christian category is a mishmash of a few topics which may or may not be more controversial than others. The Mormon category seems to actually contain a reference to a real controversy. The Islam category is essentially a list of references to anything where Islam was mentioned in any news article. Whatever these categories are about, it isn't controversies per se, and as stated above, hardly anything isn't the subject of some controversy. Mangoe 18:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - jc37 21:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per above. Michael 03:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedian football (soccer) fans

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and this basketball team:

I made everything match the current article title, or the league's spelling of FC (with or without periods). (Note that there are two Newcastle Uniteds.) And of course, I'll be sad to see the delightfully ambiguous category:Wikipedians who support Reading go, but there you are.--Mike Selinker 09:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Black lawyers

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose proposed renaming of the category to "African American lawyers". Although the bulk of the lawyers on the list are American, a sizeable minority are not, and would need to be moved to a new category. Legis 08:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Self-hating Jews (alleged)

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inherently POV category that will inevitably be used to support certain points of view.--Jersey Devil 04:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jersey Devil.--Oakhouse 04:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: this is based on a wikipedia article Self-hating Jew. It is a known discussed phenomena that gives no less than 73,000 results in google. [2]. It says alleged on the category just to make sure it will remain WP:NPOV. Therre are many sourced allegations for any article being considerd fit for the category (very few will make it probably). In conclusion then, there's no reason what-so-ever to consider this category for deletion. Amoruso 04:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and the sooner the better. This category is POV-pushing at its worst. CJCurrie 04:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to draw the attention of readers to this post, made by the poster who created this category. CJCurrie 06:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, I was going to do that myself you saved me the trouble. It is a weird phenomena that is analysed by universities why people hate their own people in a perverted way. Self hating is a known phenomena in cultures and is a real issue. People who want to delete this category because they don't understand it are speaking of ignorance of the issue I'm afraid, and it's too bad they're casting their votes without understanding it or learning about it. Shahak being a sourced anti semite is indeed the best example for self hating jew among others. This is all covered in Sander Gilman's book Jewish Self-Hatred.Amoruso 06:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would have thought that my decade covering racism and hate crimes as a reporter (with something of a specialty in anti-Semitism and Holocaust survivors) might have qualified me to vote on this category, but now I know better. Thanks for clearing that up.--Mike Selinker 08:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you're welcome. live and learn. Amoruso 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mike was being sarcastic. Then again maybe you were too.--T. Anthony 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only one definitively "fits" the category, and adding "alleged" doesn't make the Category more encyclopedic. -Umdunno 05:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can think of one reason what-so-ever to consider this category for deletion: It's the worst idea for a category I've seen in months. No one will ever definitively fit here, and thank heaven for that.--Mike Selinker
  • Delete. This is an attempt to create a blacklist. --Zerotalk 07:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Self-hating Jew" had a certain meaning years ago, but nowadays it is generally used to mean "Jew who does not support Israel 110%". There is no way this can be an objective category. --Dhartung | Talk 12:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Amoruso. Bakaman Bakatalk 17:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A category is not the way to assign a contentious and subjective label to someone as it offers no opportunity for explanation or context. If this term must be associated with a specific person, it should be done with extreme care in the body of their article or in Self-hating Jew. ×Meegs 19:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Polemical name. Golfcam 19:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV pushing. Category names should be bland. Twittenham 21:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete something like this cries out for citation, which can't be done on a category, but rather a list. Not suggesting listify, but would not oppose it. - Jc37 03:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as soon as possible per CJCurrie. --kingboyk 07:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Categories are supposed to stay away from POVs. --Cswrye 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an allegation is by definition POV. This precedent would allow Category:Imbecile (alleged) and Category:Obnoxious people (alleged). --dm (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In general "allegation" categories are a bad idea as there's too great a chance of abuse. In a category you can't cite whether the allegation was by a tabloid or represents a widespread view among scholarly biographers. If something like this were to exist it'd be better as a list. That said some kind of category for admitted anti-Semitic Jews, like Dan Burros, or Jewish critics of Judaism like Baruch Spinoza might be possible.--T. Anthony 03:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one is just about as pernicious as categories get. Choalbaton 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No comment necessary. Fantailfan 13:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy as applied to WP:LIVING people. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a one article category which could just as well be a single reference in the original article. Mangoe 18:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It just asking for a libel suit to describe someone as a 'self hating Jew'; recognised phenomena or not. Legis 14:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People of Assam

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Assam. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Current Australian game shows

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, time based categories are always on specific ranges, we don't distinguish between current and former due to upkeep issues. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Framingham-based companies

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Companies based in Framingham, Massachusetts, or Delete, no preference. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Relevance? Michael 01:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and make sure it's populated, seems there should be more. I have no objection to these in principle but it shouldn't be orphaned within a state, obvious exceptions being e.g. Boston, but that doesn't exist. Half a dozen states have city breakdowns, California has a county breakdown level. --Dhartung | Talk 03:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Educational institutions named after U.S. presidents

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was listify to List of educational institutions named after U.S. presidents --Kbdank71 18:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a distinguishing characteristic. However, I think it could make a fine list article. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ų*Do not delete. Useful for research purposes. 12:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - serves no purpose. Merchbow 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Companies based in Germany

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Companies of Germany, convention of Category:Companies by country. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Michael 01:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Cswrye 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_3&oldid=1136103537"