The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 keep --Kbdank71 15:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category would, if fleshed out, largely duplicate the pre-existing and extensive Category:Christian rock. The only difference would be that the newly created Category:Christian rock musical groups wouldn't feature individual artists like Michael W. Smith or Amy Grant, and would only feature actual bands. I'm not seeing much of a value to that fine a granulation. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 21:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move relevant entries from Category:Christian rock there. As for the solo musicians, put them in Category:Christian rock musicians, which should differentiate it well enough. Currently, articles like Christian hardcore are lumped in with the Christian rock category, which makes it harder to find subgenres' articles when browsing the category. --Idont Havaname 18:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not my thing, but certainly has room to grow. Carina22 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well established genre. Subcategorisation is fine here. Rhollenton
• Keep per above --Vizcarra 00:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Idont Havaname's suggestion, and seconding Carina22's comment. Other genre's have a category for the genre, and a subcat for the bands within that genre. - N (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only members of this are victims of the attack on the RMS Lusitania and they are already included in the easy-to-navigate Category:RMS Lusitania. Judging from the description of the category, its concept is already represented in other categories, e.g. Category:Murder victims. At a minimum, it should be more properly named. wknight94 19:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; category already covered by Category:Murder victims, and this title is POV and has some "Wikipedia is a memorial" tendencies. --Idont Havaname 22:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Idont havaname. - TexasAndroid 15:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV and there are all too many of them. Carina22 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV -- Taiichi «talk» 08:36, 8 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 15:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:HongKongers, already covered by Category:Hong Kong people
• Category:World War II Hongkonger, already covered by Category:Hong Kong World War II people
• Category:Hong Kong Canadians, already covered by Category:Chinese Canadians from Hong Kong
• Category:Canadian born HongKongers, empty and not particularly useful

howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The other categories are adequate as stated. Carina22 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Basically duplicates. Bhoeble 12:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as duplicates with nonstandard names. - Bobet 02:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom - N (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 15:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and already exists as Category:Troop ships. Joshbaumgartner 17:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Enochlau 03:25, 3 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both cover the same ground. Due to the diverse nature of research vessels, which can sometimes challenge conventional classification, vessels would seem to be the more appropriate name. Joshbaumgartner 16:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom. - TexasAndroid 15:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge nominator is correct. Carina22 00:57, 5 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 15:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Another one that I would like to see return when we have some articles for it, but for now is barren. Joshbaumgartner 16:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now Carina22 00:57, 5 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 keep --Kbdank71 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. I couldn't find any articles readily to populate this with, although it is a good category when such articles come up. Still, as an empty, it should be deleted until such time as we have articles for it. Joshbaumgartner 16:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

are there ever going to be enough famous people who carried coal for a living for this category? most people who carry coal dont rise to fame and fortune. BL kiss the lizard 23:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oop! i just checked Collier. didnt know they were a kind of ship as well. but Collier is a dab page so this would need a different name if kept like ((cl|Colliers (ships)]] BL kiss the lizard 18:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weren't several seaplane and submarine tenders converted from colliers? 132.205.44.134 23:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it remains empty, which is likely as it is hardly a distinuished class of ship. Carina22 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found a few that had articles. Is a list of the USN ships of this class. Several ships that have articles were converted from Colliers, they probably could be included in this cat. Vegaswikian 23:31, 10 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Martin 17:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be changed to match the parent Category:Churches in Israel and the convention of using the "in" form for man made objects. Rename Category:Churches in Jerusalem. CalJW 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose STopCat 23:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to give a reason? CalJW 23:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original category name is more concise STopCat 00:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Consistency is more important. Carina22 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Shorter name is better,easier and faster when typing.--Jondel 10:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Should be speedy. Susvolans ⇔ 12:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Should be a speedy. Bhoeble 12:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. If we have a clearly defined convention we should stick to it. If anyone doesn't like the convention they should make a group nomination or otherwise re-raise the general issue. Valiantis 15:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Valiantis Sumahoy 20:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Valiantis Rhollenton 21:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nominator. --Vizcarra 00:16, 9 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 15:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. If recreated with articles, probably better to name it Category:Coastal patrol vessels due to vagaries in names/classification for patrol ships, patrol craft, patrol boats, cutters, etc. Joshbaumgartner 16:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nominator. Carina22 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as proposed. Rhollenton 21:40, 5 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 --Kbdank71 15:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are two variants of this, both created by the same user who then nominated one of them for speedy renaming, but neither complies with the capitalisation policy. Merge both Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists and Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists into a new category:BBC newsreaders and journalists. CalJW 14:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as proposed. Almost a speedy. Carina22 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was the user that created the two almost identical categories. I had forgotten I had already created Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists when I created Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists so I listed the latter for deletion.It's probably best just to delete that and leave the version currently in use. Merging would not have much point - Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists is very basic and has some of the information from Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists, merging the two would have no difference to the new category and honeslty would not be at all productive. However, if it is decided that the name for the defunct Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists is better, recategorise the articles in Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists and delete that instead. No need for any merging, just use one and delete the other. Wikiwoohoo 17:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summary as I rambled a lot in my message Don't merge the categories - no point. Use one of the categories and delete the other. Probably best to delete Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists as it the one I created after forgetting the existence of my earlier creation Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists. Therefore: Delete Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists and Keep Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists. Wikiwoohoo 17:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to category:BBC newsreaders and journalists as per CalJW; Wikiwoohoo's suggestion of just retaining one of the two existing categories isn't consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions: no word should be capitalized except for the acronym BBC, and the normative term is the one-word newsreader, not the two-word news reader. Bearcat 04:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all that. I agree with what is proposed and have created Category:BBC newsreaders and journalists as suggested. This uses the same introduction as Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists and so means it is a case of delete Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists and Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists. I will now recategorise all articles that were with the previous category.Wikiwoohoo 21:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Delete the two capitalised variants as proposed. Only one of them has been cleared so far. Bhoeble 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both into Category:BBC newsreaders and journalists as proposed - N (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 15:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category seems to have become a parent category for other categories which may not be needed, and if they are should be better placed in a Category:African American sportspeople to match Category:American sportspeople. Hiding talk 12:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. in American English, it s common to refer to sportspeople as athletes, and i m almost certain that is why this, the supra-cat for all kinds of American sportspeople of African descent, has been named as this. hang on, i just read the nominator's comments and they don t match the suggested category name change in the title. i support using the less ambiguous and more international English sounding "African-American sportspeople" but i m not American and think this is one for American users to decide -Mayumashu 15:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename to Category:African American sportspeople, Oppose Category:African American track and field athletes, as the category is much broader than just track & field. - TexasAndroid 15:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Rather changed or merged, this category needs to be deleted altogether.--YHoshua 16:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Americans use "athletes" as "sportspeople". - Darwinek 23:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support changing it to "African American sportspeople". The use of "athletes" to mean "track and field athletes" on Wikipedia may be confusing, but it is the dominant use of the term here, and thus should not allow this category to be named "athletes" as an exception. Renaming it "African American sportspeople" doesn't change the tone of the category, and does avoid the confusion.--Mike Selinker 16:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming it. "African American", by definition, refers to Americans of African descent, and in the U.S. the term "athlete" is very much preferred. --Idont Havaname 18:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain I don't like the ethnic cats, but we're stuck with them. Carina22 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to amended proposal. Rhollenton 21:36, 5 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 15:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given that over 80 percent of current NBA players are black, this category would include most of the NBA and would be similar to a "Category:White ice hockey players." There are no similar categories for black football or NHL, or categories in any of those sports divided by race. This is an unnecessary category. YHoshua 04:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. (The nomination was adapted from a question I had asked a few weeks ago on that category's talk page.) --Idont Havaname 05:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Put up this cat's supra-cat, Category:African American athletes for nomination first. this is a useful sub-cat for the supra-cat, which is an enormous list. as long as the supra-cat exists, this one is useful. -Mayumashu 08:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and unclear why this is a sub cat of Category:African American athletes. Hiding talk 12:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I see the need for this as a subcat of Category:African American athletes. - TexasAndroid 15:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I think we need to delete both categories.--YHoshua 16:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have a strong opinion whether this category should exist (I lean toward no, because there's no parallel category for whites, but it's not a strong feeling), but I am strongly opposed to making any entry SOLELY get this categorization, because "African American" should not be a subcategorization of "American" (any more than it's a subcategory of "African"). That is, an entry should have "American basketball player" in addition to this (if this category stays), because then you avoid the ugliness of a whole bunch of white players being nearly the only entries under Category:American basketball players. So whether or not this gets kept, it shouldn't remove players from the American category.-- Mike Selinker 16:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Mike Selinker. The guidance that says an article shouldn't be in a category and a subcategory should go becuase of categories like this. Carina22 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment. i too support User:Mike Selinger's comments and think too as User:Carina that there should not be any hard-fast rule that a page cannot appear in both cat and sub-cat - this is an excellent case in point but there are others. -Mayumashu 07:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC) where Category:American basketball players is a nationality category and category:African American basketball players is an ethnicity category, i ve gone and removed the later as a sub-cat of the former.[reply]

Hmm... not too sure I agree with that. The article African American specifically states, "An African American... is a member of an ethnic group in the United States whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Africa." I don't think that we should be debating the point that African Americans are Americans; that was settled hundreds of years ago. Similarly, basketball players from African countries have their own category; for example, Dikembe Mutombo is in Category:Basketball players of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Hakeem Olajuwon is in both Category:Nigerian basketball players and Category:American basketball players (one would think that a literal African-American like Olajuwon would be in this category too, but he isn't). --Idont Havaname 15:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or shall we punish and ethnicity for excelling in a sport? The "white hockey players" is a bad comparison for Canada since most Canadians are white. --Vizcarra 00:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it should be noted that there were several votes, including mine, when this article was incorrectly listed as an AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/African_American_basketball_players at which point there were 2 other deletes to go with my 1 keep. That discussion should have been merged with this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:28, 10 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 15:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be made for some fictional universe that User:UPC Starbase plans to write about. Its only content is itself and the name is completely unspecific. Delete. Kusma (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with Kusma. --YHoshua 05:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How many fictional universes are there? Carina22 00:57, 5 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 15:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also from the User:UPC Starbase fictional universe (whose notability is also not clear to me), has no useful content and an unspecific name. Delete. Kusma (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My best guess is that this UPC stuff is some kind of Star Trek fan-fiction, all related articles and templates are listed for deletion to and regardles of that the cat name is too generic. --Sherool (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My guess is the same as Sherool's. The Land 16:55, 4 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 15:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountains of Texas already existed and follows naming convention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains; Category:Texas mountains is just a redirect and should be deleted. Mike Dillon 01:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All redirects are "just a redirect". That isn't an argument for deletion, or we would have no redirects. CalJW 11:19, 2 December 2005 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 15:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to handle objectively - consensus from a website is not a validation of a TV show's quality. I suggest the category should be deleted as it is inherently biased. Barneyboo (Talk) 00:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agree with nominator. --Idont Havaname 05:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a NPOV issue since the category doesn't make an assessment—it documents the assessment made by a verifiable source (just as the assessment of those who give out Emmy Awards or Razzies are verifiable, and those assessments have categories). One can debate whether jumping the shark meets notability criteria, but it appears to satisfy those criteria as well. There's no obvious reason in the guide to deletion to delete this category, though if incompleteness were an acceptable reason for deletion, it would qualify under that criteria (since as of this comment there are only three articles in the category). 66.167.137.72 09:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete POV, unmaintainable. A consensus on a website that a show has outlived its usefulness is not information best presented in a category. This category is basically Category:TV shows judged to have outlived usefulness by voters of the website Jump the Shark, which is not a useful category. The reason it is Point of View is that any one of the entries can be disputed, at which point it should be removed from the category, which ultimately makes the category unmaintainable. Hiding talk 11:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Hiding - TexasAndroid 15:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• One of those situations where it's important to remember that a category is not a valid substitute for a list. They serve two very different purposes; this particular case is not appropriate for categorization. Delete. Bearcat 18:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Listify within the jump the shark article. — Instantnood 08:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The thin end of the wedge. Things should only be categorised on the basis of the most prestigious award in their field. Bhoeble 12:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Vizcarra 00:10, 7 December 2005 (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.