< December 28	December 30 >

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 Speedied by Radiant!

Has ((cfd)) since 10 December, completing nomination. Some kind of experiment, seems to be abandoned. cesarb 23:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedied as user test. Radiant_>|< 00:04, 30 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 17:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirects to Category:Mac OS software, title is not useful. cesarb 23:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnecessary soft redirect. siafu 17:30, 30 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 17:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One way or another this needs to be consistent, an extra category for subsidiaries doesnt seem to be of any use as Category:Citigroup contains subsidiaries anyway. Merge Ian3055 22:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 17:31, 30 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 17:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason? just cos I feel like it. MeltBanana 19:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both to Category:Subdivisions of The Gambia to match article title, Subdivisions of The Gambia. Local Government Areas of The Gambia is just a redirect to subdivisions. siafu 17:33, 30 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, no merge/rename K1Bond007 06:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Category talk:Birds by country Elf | Talk 18:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object, present name seems to match naming schemes more closely. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object: This is a merge. The bird articles vs. lists vs. categories is baffling. These both actually need to be in Category:Bird lists by country. There's not a lot of bird articles - they're all actually species lists. These are categories of lists of birds by country which all point to the lists of birds by species --- figure that one out. wknight94 02:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Radiant. siafu 17:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lists and categories are different things. Choalbaton 20:28, 31 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 17:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty catg Elf | Talk 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There's already two categories like this that people are trying to merge. We certainly don't need another empty one to further confuse the issue. wknight94 02:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 17:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-In least temporarily. I have seen several lists of birds, discounting those in Category: Regional bird lists, and they could be placed in this category. I'll try that and if there still isn't enough then will talk.--T. Anthony 04:50, 31 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 K1Bond007 06:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is inherently POV in most circumstances. Addition of it to any article is very likely to create an edit war. Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (again) This category is not inherently POV. We can and succesfully have taken a sociological . There are certain hallmarks of pseudoscience and scientific community unanimous in denouncing pseudoscience as such. Sure, there is a demarcation problem at the fringes, but we can be conservative with such topics, but such things as perpetual motion machines, astrology and creation science are patently pseudoscience. Also, we really need to star creating Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Foo pages in order to stop constant renominations. We've been through this before. — Dunc|☺ 16:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep again. Categories are a navigational aid, not a presentation of facts. SchmuckyTheCat 16:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (is this the third time it has been listed here?). I'm still not sure the current name of it is best but nothing better has come along. It is a valid conceptual category and its assignment should be purely sociological — Creationism is labeled psuedoscience because mainstream scientific consensus is that it is pseudoscience. It's a POV but it should be an attributed and easily verified POV, and one which is meaningful and useful to apply at times. And while it surely will create controversy in applying it, that by itself is not a good reason to nix it. --Fastfission 17:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (again) Ian Cairns 17:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or perhaps I should say pseudo-delete. David | Talk 17:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you did, it'd probably be taken as a delete. :P --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 20:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -Willmcw 18:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (again) KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fastfission. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I will listen to proposals for a name change. I don't really like the "questionable validity" term that was proposed. Bubba73 (talk), 19:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Phroziac about as NPOV as [:Category:False reigions]]. --Doc ^ask? 20:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename to just about anything ("unprovable science" etc.)... the current name screams edit wars and such for little benefit... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 20:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fastfission. --CDN99 21:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to: Science of debated status, or something similar. Larix 22:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Shouldn't talk pages for categories which underwent an unsuccessful deletion vote be tagged with a notice similar to the one articles get ? -- Ze miguel 01:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A common neutral encyclopedic term disliked by amateur enthusiasts. The cat. needs to be watched for potential abuse. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. However debatable may be certain uses of the category, there is a neat distinction between science (normal science, if you wish) and unscientific knowledge. Paradigm shifts do occur, but it's not Wikipedia's function to foresee them. Taragüí @ 16:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (again). I think it's an even worse violation of npov to NOT have this category, as then you're giving equal weight to both real science and pseudoscience. A good encyclopedia needs to distinguish between what is accepted by the majority of scientists as being true, i.e. general relativity, and then pseudoscientific bullshit, such as homeopathy. Categories are one easy and effective way to make this distinction. As for being prone to edit wars - there are all sorts of other "flammable" content on Wikipedia that are prone to causing edit wars too, like abortion, George W. Bush, or History of Gibraltar (apparently). Is the solution really just to delete all of it? I don't think so. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 20:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-But scale it back a good deal. Pseudoscience should really be for things claiming to be scientific, but that aren't science. I think several different oddball forms of spirituality, that don't or no longer really claim to be science, are being listed and it's confusing the whole deal.--T. Anthony 08:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I've added a section to the talk section for the category for a history of the category's trips to WP:CFD; see Category talk:Pseudoscience#History of category at WP:CFD. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major field which needs a category. Choalbaton 20:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can we stop wasting time? Pseudoscience exists. NPOV is not false balance. --DocJohnny 21:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The labeling of pseudoscience as such helps protect people from this misinformation. If you cannot separate it from real science, you might as well redefine science.--SpacemanAfrica 03:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep much needed category. Osomec 22:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasoning given by SchmuckyTheCat, i found dozens of fascinating articles here, which i was able to find because they were all grouped together in this category. readers can make up their own mind whether the science actually is pseudo, these articles have things in common, and should be categorised together, i dont care what the name is really, pseudoscience seems fine. Jdcooper 05:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a useful category, but make sure the text of the category page addresses the POV issue. —Keenan Pepper 09:58, 4 January 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.

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 K1Bond007 06:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All articles in category are currently AFD'd due to being possible advertising. Should the articles be deleted, this category would thus be unnecessary. Should the articles stand, they are not sizable or notable enough to warrant their own category. Mitsukai 16:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Yooden
• Keep - as long as there are articles in there, the argumentation to delete does not stand. Larix 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too small to require a cat, use other comics schemes if the articles remain, or listify. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Radiant. Only four articles, all of which are likely to be merged. siafu 17:37, 30 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 16:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In line with the other subcategories of Category:Prisoners and detainees by nationality Ze miguel 16:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Yooden
  • Oops, change that to Rename, though I must say that the category make no sense to me. --Yooden
• Rename. No argument. siafu 17:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What on earth is the purpose of this category? Detained or imprisoned by whom for what reason? The current cat contains two detainees at Guantanamo Bay and a former prisoner at Auschwitz. The subcat within it Category:Canadians imprisoned abroad contains two Canadians of Syrian origin who are/were in prison in Syria. The cat itself is a subcat of Category:Prisoners and detainees by nationality, which is in turn a subcat of Category:Criminals by nationality. To include two detainees at Guantanamo Bay indirectly in a "criminals" category is at best POV, to include an inmate of Auschwitz seems absurd. The category is clearly vague and confusing; moreover it is unneccessary as there are ample subcategories within the parent Category:Prisoners and detainees which define by type of and/or reason for imprisonment. We do categorise by occupation and nationality, but I don't believe prisoner or detainee can be classed as occupations! Valiantis 01:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose here is to bring the naming in line with the other subcategories of Category:Prisoners and detainees by nationality. If these are all be deleted, I think it should be done in a separate proposal grouping all of them. -- Ze miguel 02:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but User:Valiantis raises i good point in that these people are not criminals as detainees. i disagree with (s)he however in that this is a valid category as a subcategory of Canadian people. the point is that these Canadians have pages here (ie. are encyclopedic) simply for their being held at Guantanamo Bay. the experience of being held prisoner at Nazi concentration camps are also encyclopedic so i created the cat to include both. let s correct the links between categories though Mayumashu 09:26, 31 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 redir --Kbdank71 16:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate with Category:Prisoners and detainees. The category was requested to be emptied and deleted since October 6, 2004. Ze miguel 16:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Yooden
• Cat redir. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. siafu 17:38, 30 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 16:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second nomination (first nomination here). Since the main dieselpunk article was deleted as original research, there's little reason to retain the category. - EurekaLott 15:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete w/o the dieselpunk article, the category is meaningless. Avogadro 15:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 17:38, 30 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 redir --Kbdank71 16:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate with Category:Death row prisoners Ze miguel 15:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be Category:Prisoners on death row. And "Condemned prisoners" should probably be a redirect. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Prisoners sentenced to death is perhaps more encyclopeadic ? -- Ze miguel 15:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Isn't "Death row" an Americanism? siafu 17:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come to think of it, yes. But neither WP nor Wikt defines "condemned prisoner" as such. I suppose "...sentenced to death" is clearest, as Ze suggests. Radiant_>|< 18:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Death row is an Americanism. Neutral terms are preferable. Choalbaton 20:30, 31 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 15:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with the rest of the Category:Computer and video games categories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Golfcam 15:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 17:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Also, this has a subcategory Category:Video game music composers which should be renamed in the same manner. --Vclaw 01:36, 31 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 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The category title is POV
2. To broad (there are LOTS of notable people who have a level of hatred towards jews, some publicaly some not). I am sure we can list millions.
   • Every German had to be a member of the Nazi party or were declared trators right? Doesnt simply being a member of the Nazi party make one Anti-Semitic? I do not think so.
   • This is really like Category:Terrorists. As far as I care Osama is a terrorist. As far as an average Jew as well as myself Hitler is Anti-Semitic. However this is a breach of WP:NPOV. Who determinies who is Anti-Semitic?

   --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A last minute thing articles such as David Irving is very concernig. Wikipedia is not a median to declare people things or mock them. We cannot call George W. Bush a terroist just because Ossama declares him as such nor can we declare Ossama as a terrorist just because US gov and Bush as well as many others think so. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it sad that the 'Vocal' few get so much attention while the silent majority get so little. Send a message to 'Cool Cat' and Co. vote to 'Keep'. Battlefield 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, I had the opposite impression. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Cool Cats speech, let people think and vote they don't need to read your crap! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlefield (talk • contribs)

Restored "crap", who or whatever you are stop it. You are warned, I am also giving you warning one for vandalism. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The title is misleading, the content is not NPOV. --Yooden

• Delete You can't call someone anti-semitic without drawing a parallel with Hitler. CalJW 14:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The majority of the articles were in the Category:Anti-Semitism this category was becoming crowded with peoples names so this secondary Category was created. Battlefield 15:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User talk:Battlefield based on your own talk page there has already been serrious issues on a number of people being tagged with this category. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why are there still people in Category:Anti-Semitism? --Yooden

• Keep, so long as the category is only used for people who are sourced in their own articles as being anti-Semitic. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about people such as David Irving who is declared by others as Anti-Semitic and he says he isnt. How is it npov to namecall people on their wikipedia pages? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Zoe. Don't agree that the content is not NPOV so long as the category is maintained properly. David | Talk 17:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Zoe's reasoning. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 18:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a very relevant category. It has to be monitored closely, though. Larix 22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• My vote for delete is above, but I wanted to add some other thoughts.
  • This is necesserily POV, and it might very well be reason for a lawsuit against Wikipedia. If some lawyer-crazy USian finds his name on this list and needs money, what do you think he will do?
  • NPOV in an article, even on a topic like this, can be done with the proper formulation. This is not possible with a bland label as this category.
  • Third, I am reminded of the word 'Jew' written in a yellow star. --Yooden
    • Sorry but how is the "yellow jew star" related to wikipedias cfd policy? I know I am blunt but really key thing is who determines who belongs to this category and who isnt. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree, I think nobody could make a decisison like that without bias. You have to draw the line somewhere, so do you fall into this category if you told a joke about the Holocaust (as I did as a child)? If you tell your closest friends that you have a bad feeling about Jews? If you openly demand that Jewish busisnessmen should be quota'ed? If you suggest that the Holocaust victim numbers are exaggerated? If you suggest that the Holocaust never happened? If you regret it wasn't 'successful' enough? Where do you draw the line? --Yooden
        • Oh I agree with you. No one is qualifed to detemine that hence why the category is inaproporate. As far as User:Battlefield is concerned ((test)) is "Anti-Semitic crap" (and hence should appear in the category?) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: But maybe it needs to be renamed? "Admittedly anti-semitic people" maybe? As far as lawyer-crazy Americans suing, that has nothing to do with this category - that goes for all of Wikipedia. Just ask John Seigenthaler Sr.
  • In the mid-1980s, Irving began openly associating with neo-Nazi and extremist groups, and his reputation began to wane. In the late 1990s, he sued the Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt for having listed him as a Holocaust denier in her book Denying the Holocaust. After a much publicised trial, Irving lost the case and was found to be a Holocaust denier by the court. In the process, his reputation as a historian was effectively destroyed. from David Irving
  • David Irving is declared Anti-Semitic and he has sued or attemted to sue people declaring him as such. What if I am next to be declared Anti-Semitic for cfding Category:Anti-Semitic people? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Seigenthaler case is different, the entry was clearly wrong and was changed as soon as Seigenthaler pointed it out. The entries in this category are meant to be true. Are they supposed to be deleted once anyone takes offense? What's the point then? --Yooden
    • • I am sure if we inform him (David Irving) there would be enjoyable amount of fireworks. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV/attack magnet. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - so is Adolph Hitler, just because something is a POV/attack magnet doesn't mean we should delete it, its the relevance and importance of the (in this case) category thats important GabrielF 03:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Hitler article is different. Hard work is done to keep it NPOV (I think successfully), and attacks are mostly simple vandalism. It's a Good Article and has enough attention to stay that way. The attacks on this category might very well have another nature. --Yooden
      • That is one of the differences between articles and categories. Radiant_>|< 18:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename into much less controversial Category:Anti-Semitism (people). Also, a couple of comments. 1) Since Category:Nazis is a subcat, I think the individual Nazis should be removed from this one. 2) In case this cat. is completely removed, the articles should be moved back into Category:Anti-Semitism. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about people who clam they arent Anti-Semitic but someone else says they are? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the first time we deal with a controversy. I am sure we can come up with encyclopedic criteria for the inclusion. As with other categories, we should list those criteria in the description and watch for abuses. To come up with a NPOV title is the first step. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename to anti-semitism (people) I saw this category the other day while browsing around and I figured it would come up for a vfd. However, the category is relevant and none of the entries that I recognized were objectionable. It has to be closely monitored, as Larix said, but it should be kept GabrielF 03:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC) -- edited to support Humus Sapiens excellent suggestion GabrielF 08:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but who determines who is Anti-Semitic and what makes one Anti-Semitic, who determines the border from "simple hate" and "Anti-Semiticism"? Who determines who is a gurrela and who is a terrorist? Of course I made similar statements that were removed by a third party so please have a read of them :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, as I said for all of the names in the category that I recognized on the list it is pretty obvious from what they have said and written and done that they are anti-semitic. How could you argue that Hitler or Goebelles or David Duke weren't anti-semites for example? This is much less complicated than asking who is a terrorist because I think we have a pretty good definition of anti-semitism. I don't really understand what you mean when you say who determines the difference between simple hate and anti-semitism, anti-semitism, according to my dictionary (Oxford American) is defined as "hostility to or prejudice against Jews." There is no distinction between simple hatred of Jews and anti-semitism. Of course there could easily be controversial inclusions, but those should be debated on a case by case basis, we shouldn't wipe out the whole category. GabrielF 08:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes few doubt Hitler was indeed Anti-Semitic, also since he is dead its not like he is going to file lawsuits. However then you have living/breathing historians in this category. We will only have "forum infestation" from categories such as this one. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename to Category:Anti-Semitism (people) because
  1. If it is so hard to decide if someone is anti-semitic or not, then at least half of Category:Anti-Semitism should also be untagged. Either keep both or delete both.
  2. There are too many entries in the parent category to re-merge these, so the people need to go into some sub-category.
  3. Perhaps this category name itself is offensive. If so, rename it, not delete.

--ssd 08:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sensationalist, very open-ended, not useful. --Improv 15:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful to keep Category:Anti-Semitism down to size. Taragüí @ 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just having a category of all people who hate jews is similar to the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" celebrities; unless being anti-semitic is what these individuals are about (in which case it should be renamed anyway), this is not encyclopedic. siafu 17:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actualy no, it is not even that. Some of the people appearing on the category although being accused of Anti-Semiticm, they deny the accusations. So the category really is bad taste, at least for such entries. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The initial problems which some people have noted above weren't due to the category name per se. They were because all the individuals listed in Category:Anti-Semitism were recategorised wholesale into this new category. That included people who had been victims or opponents of anti-Semitism: a problem of misuse of the category rather than a problem with the nature of the category per se.

If we are to rename the category per Humus Sapien's suggestion, or any similar suggestion, we should be clear whether it's to include such people; if so, the category name should be such as to make it clear that being listed in it doesn't mean the person is assumed to be an anti-Semite.

Personally, I'm not sure whether that's clear from any of the alternatives being proposed at the moment, but neither I am entirely convinced that the new category under discussion here is the best way of dealing with the issue, so for the moment I'm not voting. Palmiro | Talk 19:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but find a better name. I don't particularly like the suggested name Category:Anti-Semitism (people) because that would appear to include people who were victims or opponents of anti-Semitism as well as people identified as being anti-Semitic (or widely labelled anti-Semitic by others). I think a category, to be useful to a reader, should be more tightly drawn. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zoe; no objection to a different name if we can come up with something better; should have text on the category page indicating the criteria for inclusion. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cool Cat, or at least rename. FireFox 14:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Far too open to misuse. There are so many degrees, and the difference between pre and post holocaust anti-semitism is ignored by this simplistic category name. Choalbaton 20:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible Delete. Calling someone "Anti-Semitic" is a matter of opinion and judgement, and it is not the place of Wikipedia to do that. Wikipedia articles can say someone is "labeled by the ADL Anti-Semitic," is "allegedly Anti-Semitic," or (if it's true) something along the lines of "is generally considered to be Anti-Semitic." But articles should never say that someone is Anti-Semitic unless they themselves say that they are. And having this category ammounts to just that, and I'm thinking over half of the people in the category do not consider themselves as such. Maybe most of them are, but it's not Wikipedia's place to make such judgements. Wikipedia needs to just present the facts and everyone's relevant opinion and let the readers make up their own mind. Also, given that there are far more racial minorities in the world than Jewish people like me, and that racism is far more prevelent than anti-Jewish bigotry, why is there no Category:Racist people? Neither William J. Simmons nor Nathan Bedford Forrest are in any category with the word "racism" or "racist." Though they are in the far more neutral, objective, and verifiable category "Ku Klux Klan members." If people are a member of say the American Nazi party, then we can put them in a category for that. But categories should be objective distinctions, and this category fails miserably at neutrality, and as others have noted, is likely to end up being applied to anyone who some people think is Anti-Semitic. Blackcats 08:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Blackcats. I don't think a "keep so long as it is not misused" vote is reasonable when it is so likely to be misused. Are the people who voted that way going to keep an eye on it and renominate it themselves when there is next a problem? Somehow I doubt it. Osomec 22:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep under Zoe's condition. The reason is simple: If we do away with the category, we will keep the antisemites. So what is best? [1] There is no category, there are no antisemites [2] There is a category, there are no antisemites [3] There is a category, there are antisemites [4] There is no category, there are antisemites. Conclusion: this proposal moves us from the near-worst to the very worst situation. gidonb 03:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a topic best covered by articles, not by a category. The category is a crude attack device. Carina22 09:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep can't be any harder to watch than all the other articles regularly vandalized. Should be "individuals" not people. --William Allen Simpson 15:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is it for anti zionists, anti- Jewish world conspiracy? Delete all opinion categories. Arniep 01:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This category is being used against people against Israel, Zionism, the Jewish religion, or the Jewish heritage. Anti-semitism shouldonly applie to those who are against Jewish heritage, or even better all middle-eastern heritage. Comment: if the article is to be kept, it should have a strong disclaimer explaining just what anti-semitism means in this context. Citizen Premier 06:48, 4 January 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.

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 15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove abbreviation in line with policy. Sumahoy 12:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 08:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 17:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unnecesary burocracy, speedy rename it. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Speedy rename --ssd 15:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm on the other side of this one: this organization is far better known by its initials than its name. Many people who know the group couldn't even say accurately what IWW stands for. So I vote to keep it where it is. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:12, 3 January 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.

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 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category describing a religious movement, for which there is a single article. Ze miguel 10:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 17:46, 30 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 15:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created for the purpose of anti-LGBT POV pushing; not an important category. DDerby-(talk) 10:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous no-consensus CFD discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 25. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Biased nomination. As being LGBT is promoted via the category system in relation to positive accomplishments, this should be kept too. Sumahoy 12:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean, this should be kept because you want your POV represented? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inherently POV. Ambi 13:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per the first bloke to speak in the category's defence. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the category Category:LGBT criminals is rather worrying too. Should this include Alan Turing, whose only crime was being gay? Morwen - Talk 14:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've already been through that. CalJW 14:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please point to where, for those of us who've blundered into CfD and upset your applecart with our ignorance? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked it up. It's in the log for CFD:LGBT murderers. Also, just prior to that vote, CFD:LGBT criminals. The result of both was "no consensus". I now regret bringing this up so soon after.. it looks like we'll have no consensus again. --DDerby-(talk) 08:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sigifigant correlation between LGBT and murderers much less serial killers - until evidence of such is presented, this looks like just POV Triona 14:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do we have Category:African American serial killers ? How are you going to prove they are gay anyway? - FrancisTyers 14:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletee, per everyone else. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wonder where all these infrequent visitors to this page came from? I dare say they are a little skewed compared to the user base as a whole. This can go when your propaganda categories go, but you won't allow your bias to be removed so this should stay as an attempt balance the most obvious systematic breach of the neutrality policy which has been inflicted on wikipedia. CalJW 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really think the frequency of my usage of this page matters. I'm a member of the Wikipedia community. I usually avoid deletion discussions unless they are important to me. Of course, I can't talk for anyone else. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I frequently look, but often don't enter a position, due either to no strong feeling either way, or clear consensus one way or the other. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, people on AfD sometimes complain about interested outsiders invading their playground, too. It's stupid then, and it's stupid now. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no "obvious systematic breach of the neutrality policy" going on. No, wait, I take that back, there is one: the ongoing campaign by some users to assert that even the slightest mention of the fact that homosexuality exists is unacceptable POV, but pretending that it doesn't is somehow neutral. Bearcat 21:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We already voted on this. Golfcam 15:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reference to a previous CFD on the talk pages. see my comment above. --DDerby-(talk) 21:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lesbian Killers? WTF? --Yooden
• Delete Nonsense category. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anyway, shouldn't 'LGBT murderer' be used for someone who kills Lesbians, Gay men, bisexuals and transgender people? David | Talk 19:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All at once, or one at a time? ;-) — fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with the equally nonesensical categories of LGBT muderers and LGBT criminals.Benami 20:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with yet to create Category:straight murderers, and then rename to Category:Criminals with a sexual orientation ;) Larix 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because we must keep ballence on wikipedia. grazon 23:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • So we do also need Category:LGBT non-murderers, Category:LGBT petty criminals, Category:LGBT Just normal people cheating on the taxes but honest in other things? --Yooden
    • "Balance", and I dare say "ballence" too, is a ethically bankrupt ideal. When journalists attempt to be "balanced", truth goes flying out the window. There may be reasons for keeping — yea, cavorting with pleasure as they flourish! — but "being balanced" isn't one of them. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Wow, this is quite the hornets' nest... How can we talk about proving people are gay? That argument applies to all of the zillion LGBT categories out there now. We already have LGBT categories - we already have serial killer categories - so why are we feigning horror at the idea of combining them? Sounds like paranoia to me. wknight94 23:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not all permutations of cats make sense. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This will be interesting to see how this develops, don't think it's assuming a correlation so much as a "hey, this is interesting too", like "Jewish actors" or "lefthanded Chicagoans" Chris 03:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a patently stupid category. Who cares what serial killers were LGBT? Ral315 (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably people who think it will help them Prove A Point. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty much, yes. I don't even care what serial killers are LGBT but I'm also not the thought police telling people what is stupid and what isn't. I keep my Cfd reasoning the way I keep articles: NPOV. wknight94 13:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if we have stuff like Category:LGBT artists or Category:LGBT athletes, then why not this? - ulayiti (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• For the same reason that I wouldn't have a problem with, say, a category like Category:African-American artists, especially if the people listed either overcame signigicant discrimination or if their work significantly reflects some aspect of their ethnicity, but would oppose something like Category:African-American murderers, which would seem to imply some link between Blackness and murder.Benami 17:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• So it's OK to link culture/race/sexuality when it's a positive, but when it's a negative, then we can't bring it up? It's this mentality that perpetuates reverse racism. You can say all you want about straight, white, European males, but if you speak ill of blacks/women/minorities/gays/etc., you're racist/bigot/homophobe. Keep. Anthony 15:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe you could point me towards Category:Straight, white, European serial killers?Benami 23:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That category would be too large to be of any value. If we created, say, Category:Italian serial killers or Category:French serial killers, I'd support keeping those cats as well. Anthony 00:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Anthony. It's okay to link culture/race/sexuality when that linkage has already been academically or culturally established as significant by others. If there isn't already an established field of cultural or academic study around the sexual orientation of serial killers, then having a special category for it on Wikipedia constitutes original research. Bearcat 01:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm curious. What's the field of academic or cultural study around sexual orientation of serial killers. J•A•K 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't one. That was my point. Bearcat 18:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unverifiable, trivial. siafu 17:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• "Unverifiable"? lol I understand Benami stance but long as we have category's listing gay artists I see no reason why we should get rid of gay serial killers unless we are trying to hide facts. grazon 01:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A lot of people are in the top category (and I doubt it was homophobes that created it) so it needs subdivision. Attempting to suppress the fact that some of them were murderers is as absurd as say French people trying to get Category:French murderers deleted while leaving categories for French poets and artists in place because they don't want it to be mentioned that French people also do bad things. And there is at least as much connection between being gay and a murderer as there is between being French and a murderer - though that isn't much of course. Choalbaton 20:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Is anyone trying to get Category:French murderers deleted? No. grazon 21:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not at all analogous. France is a country with a criminal code, etc. There is no LGBTland with its own criminal code and definitions of murder. LGBT is either a genetic predisposition or a behavioral pattern. So the question do we have Category:Diabetic criminals or Category:Polygamous murderers?(That said I think this shouldn't have been put on delete again so soon)--T. Anthony 04:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, a category of this type is only valid if an encyclopedic article can be written about that particular combination of sexuality and subject as a topic in its own right. Therefore, unless you can somehow write an article about gay serial murder as an inherently distinct phenomenon from non-gay serial murder, then gay serial killers don't get their own special category. It's not about positive vs. negative groupings; it's about whether any real possibility exists of writing a proper head-of-category article. If one cannot be written, the category cannot be kept. And I don't personally see that one can be written, so delete and merge everything back up to the appropriate pair of parent categories (i.e. Gay, lesbian or bisexual people and either Murderers or Serial killers as appropriate.) Bearcat 21:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, then I want to see someone nominate Category:African American athletes for CfD. There's no basis for writing an article solely on Black athletes; it's just another method of categorization. I realize I'm inclusionist, but I think removing this category is deletionism gone wild. Anthony 00:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced that it would be impossible to write an encyclopedic head article for Category:African American athletes. Negro Leagues, anyone? Baseball color line? Jackie Robinson? There's a head article to be had, trust me — I didn't even leave baseball and those three topics alone could be an article (albeit an incomplete one). Bearcat 02:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. — Instantnood 22:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you kindly address how these two categories meet the requirement that "a category of this type is only valid if an encyclopedic article can be written about that particular combination of sexuality and subject as a topic in its own right"? Because they're not in any way keepable categories if that condition isn't addressed. Bearcat 00:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-It's mostly a pointless intersection that's bound to get misused. The complaint that "it's okay to have positive but not" is also invalid. For example we have Category:Roman Catholic musicians, but not Category:Roman Catholic criminals. Further if you really want a negative category try to make one that's in least relational. For example Category:LGBT prostitutes, with names like Jacopo Saltarelli, would be relational as by definition sexuality is directly related to prostitution. Granted Category:Inquisitors does exist and is in least relational. These categories though are just...stupid. Plus as mentioned if you want positive categories up for deletion do that rather than create negative ones that make no sense.--T. Anthony 03:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If were were to keep this and be fair, then we'd have to have a "heterosexual murdurers" category, "African American murdurers," Jewish and Christian killers, etc. The same person would likely have five or more different categories of murdurers from all the different religious, ethnic, etc. groups. Another big problem is verifiability - the FBI and other goverment agencies around the world often list crime perps and victims by ethnicty, age, and gender, but not by sexual orientation. And sexual orientation is very subjective. It'd be hard enough if it were just "gay and lesbian," but with bisexual and transgender included then who's to say? If someone messed around with someone of the same sex a couple times in highschool or college does that make them "bisexual"? If they dressed in drag a few times could they be labeled as transgender? And if we have a heterosexual category then that's gonna be really hard to verify, since hetero is usually considered more normal, so news reports and stuff typically don't note it. But we can't just go labeling people as heterosexual because we don't have reason to believe otherwise. And activist now often expand LGBT still further to include "queer," "questioning," and "allies." I guess the big tent approach, but then everyone would be running out of that same tent for categories like these. I think with the other LGBT categories it should just be people who actively identify as LGBT, but I don't think too many criminals actively identify as part of this activist-construction grouping. Best to delete all categories relating to the alleged sexual orientation of criminals. Blackcats 07:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This isn't about "balance", and any argument that it is is just POV-mongering. (And we do have a "heterosexual murderers" category - Category:Murderers is by default populated with heterosexuals.). The only fact that really matters is whether or not there are sufficient convicted murderers and serial killers who are also L, G, B, or T. If so, then this is a valid avenue for information. -Seth Mahoney 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you implying that there are no LGBT members in Category:Murderers, even with this existence of this category? Can you provide evidence that every single member of Category:Murderers is, in fact, heterosexual, even by default? This is not verifiable information. siafu 21:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your contention has nothing whatsoever to do with my assertion. Perhaps a more careful analysis is in order on your part. -Seth Mahoney 10:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your assertion is that Category:Murderers is filled with heterosexuals by default; my contention is that we have little to no verifiable information on the sexual orientations of the vast majority of criminals. These are not unrelated. There are doubtless members of Category:Murderers who are not in the category being discussed who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual (though transgender is unlikely). siafu 17:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wrong. My assertion is that every article in the wiki is by default about a heterosexual person. Every encountered article title in every non-LGBT category is about a heterosexual, until proven otherwise. I don't have to prove this - countless other people have done so for me already (though, admittedly, they were arguing about real encounters in the real world, not about a wiki; then again, countless people have made similar arguments trying to get LGBT categories deleted). My assertion is not that every member of Category:Murderers is heterosexual. -Seth Mahoney 18:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • While this principle may be useful in dealing with people you've met on the street, it violates the wikipedia policy of verifiability. If someone's sexuality has not been established (as is the case with the vast majority of criminals), then it's erroneous to assume anything. This is, of course, not to mention the issue of other sexual orientations (e.g., asexuality) not covered under "LGBT". siafu 23:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It isn't useful for dealing with people you've met on the street. It is an erroneous presumption. In sexuality studies, it is often called "the presumption of heterosexuality", and is considered both a bias one of the ways heteronormativity can function in a society. You're still not actually addressing what I'm saying. My contention is not and never has been that we know the sexualities of all murderers and serial killers; that would be stupid. Undoubtedly, however, there are murderers and serial killers whose sexual identities are known. The only question, then, is whether or not they are known in sufficient numbers to warrant a category. -Seth Mahoney 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is an erroneous presumption, however you are the one who has now repeatedly made it: My assertion is that every article in the wiki is by default about a heterosexual person. Every encountered article title in every non-LGBT category is about a heterosexual, until proven otherwise. Not only does "LGBT" not include all possible sexual orientations, but your claim above: And we do have a "heterosexual murderers" category - Category:Murderers is by default populated with heterosexuals, is not reconcilable. On the one hand you are claiming that the general category is for heterosexuals and LGBT for the non-heterosexuals, but on the other you are enforcing the claim that the general category cannot be presumed to be heterosexuals, citing the "presumption of heterosexuality." You've now made contradictory statements. My response is, and has been, that we should not make any presumptions at all-- this is not a group where we commonly have information on the members sexuality (unlike, say, politicians or actors, criminals are under no pressure to tell anyone their sexual orientation), therefore we should not presume to label the general category at all on this axis. That is directly addressing what you are saying. siafu 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Are you doing this intentionally, or am I just being unclear? If you really want to understand where I'm coming from, pay attention to my use of the phrases "by default" and "until proven otherwise". Note that I threw out the presumption of heterosexuality in favor of what I'm saying. I don't think everyone in Category:Murderers is heterosexual. Again, that would be stupid. I didn't say I think everyone in Category:Murderers is heterosexual. I said the default presumption about every article about a person is that that person is heterosexual. -Seth Mahoney 04:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seth, did you or did you not support the conclusions that were determined at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality? Because what you're arguing here isn't compatible with what you agreed to there. Bearcat 19:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the guidelines I proposed there (note: unless things have recently changed, none of the guidelines there were officially agreed to by anyone and the discussion is far from concluded), the appropriate question is, "are there murderers and/or serial killers whose sexuality has had a profound effect on what they do?" If the answer is yes, and I think it is, then this category's existence is justified by the guidelines I proposed. -Seth Mahoney 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deletion proposal and the arguments for it are activism. Osomec 22:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the arguments for keeping it are activism too. This isn't a good argument. Rather more along the lines of a non sequitur or ad hominem. -Seth Mahoney 19:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Encarta is controlled by the politically correct and very obviously fails to be neutral. Please don't allow the same thing to happen to Wikipedia. Carina22 09:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emotional appeals aren't very strong arguments, either (unfortunately, they're usually pretty effective, though). -Seth Mahoney 19:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am certain there are no persons who are simultaneously gay, lesbian, transgendered, bisexual and a serial murderer. Why, you'd have your hands full trying to be any three of them! (It's a bit like having a "Category:Latvian, Estonian, and Lithuanian serial killers". - Nunh-huh 09:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Attempted Neutral Summarization by a non-voting party (WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs)) of major points expressed as of 12:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC):[reply]

Keep as it balances LGBT people being connected with positive occupations, first expressed by Sumahoy

Delete as there is no link between being LGBT and killing people so this is just pushing a particular POV, first expressed by Triona

Backed up by Bearcat per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, only valid if connection is worthy of an article

Delete as non-heterosexuality is nonverifiable for most, first expressed by FrancisTyers

Why are all these new people butting in to my vote and Keep as your (new people's) propoganda needs negative propoganda to balance it, first expressed by CalJW

Keep as it was already voted on, first expressed by Golfcam

More information from DDerby: result was no consensus

Delete as inappropriately named. The category of this title should be murders of LGBT people, first expressed by David

LGBT expands to LGB&T. They can't have been all four simultaneously. Nunh-huh

Indeed. I think I may have been misunderstood - I agree with the rationale from Triona, but I was just saying that the term "LGBT murderers" if compared with (eg) "Prostitute murderers" would mean a murderer who kills LGBT people. David | Talk 15:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as why not combine Category:Serial killers and Category:LGBT, first expressed by wknight94

Delete as some combinations are illogical from Radiant

Keep as nomination is activism and same thinking as reverse racism, first expressed by Anthony

Keep as we have Category:French murderers, first expressed by Choalbaton

Not analogous as France is a region, better anology is Category:Diabetic murderers, first expressed by T. Anthony

Keep, as articles and categories are presumed about heterosexuals until shown to be otherwise. Seth Mahoney

Keep as politically correct equals non-neutral, first expressed by Carina22

• End summary
• Keep. Thanks to WAvegetarian for the summary. -- Ze miguel 12:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it seems like an illogical intersection of sets, to me. And let me go the record as saying that Seth Mahoney is being ridiculous. Category:Murderers is for all murderers, not just heterosexual murderers, as he claims. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not actually my position. I've corrected the mistake above. -Seth Mahoney 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI strongly protest this list being considered for deletion. I'm gay and I'd say it serves a purpose. I am not overly interested in the macabre, but I find this category interesting from a sociological and historical perspective. It provides numerous illustrations of the corrosive effect of homophobia both societal and internalized. Two-thirds of teen suicides are committed by LGBT youth, I think this list provides examples of what happens when that anger and fear is turned outward rather than inward. In the history of LGBT people, we must examine not only our heroes but our villains as well. This entry is important and I would like to know how to prevent it from being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeslar (talk • contribs) 19:37, 2 January 2006
• Comment/Query As Bearcats points out, there's a policy in place at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality that says such categories "should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You must be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category is not valid." Why doesn't someone who thinks that this category is valid and important write such a head article and prove the rest of us wrong? Benami 02:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's no real reason to delete, and it seems like the sort of oddity many enjoy in wikipedia. This no more implies a link in being LGBT and a murder than LGBT atheletes does between being LGBT and an athelete. (If there is a link between sexuality and being an athelete, the page doesn't imply so). J•A•K 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a completely ridiculous intersection of unrelated sets. Zunaid 10:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete anti-LGBT POV pushing; nothing about the act of murder is relevant to sexual orientation. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete illogical NPOV unprovable trival and no head article. It's not a split of a category, it does not add information you'd look for in a category.--ssd 04:13, 6 January 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.

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 15:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. - There is stated in this category, that this is a category for people of Birmingham, Alabama, but still it is confusing to have only "Birminghamians" category. Darwinek 09:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Particularly silly since the American Birmingham is about five gazillion times less well-known. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rename (oops), though I doubt many Brummies would call themselves "Birminghamian"! Grutness...wha? 23:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 17:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. this is clearly the prominent demonym. a little research turns this up - there s nothing confusing about it. Mayumashu 09:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Keep either one as ((categoryredirect)) to the other. — Instantnood 22:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirect the bulkier named one to Category:Birminghamians. Brcreel 05:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. -- Ze miguel 14:29, 6 January 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.

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 15:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Category, superseded by Category:Natives of Cape Town. Zunaid 07:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• Cat redir. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 17:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is the better name category. Delete Category:Natives of Cape Town Mayumashu 09:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as proposed. All of these categories should be "Natives of" as that form can always be understood, whereas the other form is sometimes clear and sometimes not. Carina22 09:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Categories for people should be named to allow both natives and non-natives but long-time residents even if there are a few unclear/debatable cases. Brcreel 06:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In that case "Natives of Cape Town" could always be renamed to "People of Cape Town" if you so wish. In any case, one of these has to go. Another point (and I should have mentioned this in the first place): there's no such thing as a Cape Towner, the correct term is Capetonian. (To preclude any subsequent arguments/proposals let me just state that "People of Cape Town" would be more "world-friendly" than "Capetonians" which is probably known only to South Africans.) For this same reason I do not support a cat redir as per Radiant. btw, nominator votes delete (almost forgot!) Zunaid 10:53, 5 January 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.

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 15:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently POV and unverifiable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, no, it's not really either one. Sure, it's unverifiable whether these entities actually exist, but it's not at all unverifiable that books have been published purporting to reveal the entities' channelled wisdom. The fact that Seth, Ramtha, Kryon, Oahspe, etc. can't be definitively proven to exist doesn't make the category unverifiable — God can't be definitively proven to exist, either, and we have categories devoted to him. The question is whether we can verify that some people believe that these entities exist, and the answer to that question is yes, we can. Keep. Bearcat 08:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ramtha's 15 minutes ran out about a hundred years ago, but it was some sort of something, that we have mostly NPOV and verifiable articles about. SchmuckyTheCat 08:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite the category page to make it clear that the existence of these entities is disputed, but keep the category itself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something more comprehensive. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Thinking this was nonsense, I looked through the articles in that cat and discovered that two of the six were not actually channelled entities and removed them. The remaining articles, however, are in fact about channelled "entities" (though one is an actual person), and are apparently only notable for being so. Therefore, keep and rename to something more comprehensible. siafu 17:58, 30 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 15:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Wikipedians interested in electronics (and the page of that category says that to add yourself to Category:Wikipedians interested in electronics, you use the same code as you would if you were to add yourself to Category:Wikipedians interested electronics). Delete and use the category that is properly named. --Idont Havaname 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. -- Ze miguel 15:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted, merged with Category:Wikipedians interested in electronics, as it was apparently created by mistake. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 20:34, 29 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 nomination withdrawn --Kbdank71 14:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category needs routine deletion. It was once linked to by a template but that now links elsewhere. There are no pages here, just a small server hog that should be gotten rid of. HereToHelp (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The template was changed and the category is now in use again. Never mind.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to something like "Wikipedians who support the Democratic party" or whatever. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this category still needs sorting out as it is in Category:Democratic Wikipedians and the need to be merged. Category:Democratic Wikipedians is limited to "Wikipedians who support the United States Democratic Party" and not "Wikipedians who support democracy". MeltBanana 14:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least until the matters above are resolved! Larix 22:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with a better title. — Instantnood 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, As noted above by HereToHelp, who selected this category for routine deletion, the template's changed, and the category is in use again and no longer needs routine deletion. However, it should be taken out of Democratic Wikipedians since Democratic Wikipedians is for democracy and not the political party. Either way, it no longer needs to be considered for Deletion. I don't know the protocol for removing an article from here, so I'll just leave it at this and hope someone knowledgeable comes along and gets this out.firenexx 00:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedians should not be categorised by point of view, but only by interest or location. A category for "Wikipedians interested in American politics" might be beneficial, but this is harmful. Carina22 09:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Carina22: Please note that this is not a vote to remove all categories with political affiliation, it is only to remove one because it was not in use (and it now is, so this is irrelevant.) If you'd like to propose removing all categories with political affiliations, feel free to do just that. firenexx 15:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carina22. David | Talk 23:12, 4 January 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.

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 14:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Australian television comedy to Category:Australian television comedy series

Rename: To bring uniformity to the Category:Australian television series by genre category. -- Longhair 04:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 17:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. This seems logical. firenexx 00:46, 1 January 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.

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 and redir as nominated --Kbdank71 14:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Goth metal albums to Category:Gothic metal albums

Rename: The main article is titled Gothic metal, which is the preferred form. -- Parasti 03:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and Add. On this note, there also needs to be catagorys called Symphonic Metal made, and Gothic-Doom, to establish the differences between bands. This is so that a full editiation of the network of articles can viably be corrected, edited, or otherwise modified, as to not undermine the articles and their content. Also see the Gothic Metal articles 'Common Misconceptions' on as to why 'Goth Metal' is a misnaming of the genre 'Gothic Metal'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyasu (talk • contribs)
• Rename per nom. (I also changed the title for you to follow conventions; hope you don't mind.) --Idont Havaname 04:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all new stuff to me, so no, not at all. Thanks. -- Parasti 04:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Golfcam 15:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Cat redir? Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Given a "common misconceptions" section in the main article, this is apparently a common misconception. siafu 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. No reason to rename it, since the article itself says it's called both names and gives neither names significant prominence. firenexx 00:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It mentions 'goth metal' as a generally misleading term in the common misconceptions section. But I guess you're right, it's worth a redirect. -- Parasti 05:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. See the Gothic Music article and the Common Misconceptions article as to why its both a problem, and undermines most of the article in its own right. Leyasu 00:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... Gothic music ... siafu 01:54, 2 January 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.

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 14:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely arbitrary categories. Why 20 and not 21? Why 21 and not 16? And so on. It doesn't make an interesting or natural category. The same can be said for the "entertainers who died in their n0s" categories, which have the same failings. We don't have "kings who died in their 50s" do we? Tell me we don't have that! James James 02:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Original nom was just for "before age 20" cat, added to nomination all similar categories. Arniep 16:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Prematurely deceased entertainers
• Category:Entertainers who died before age 20
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 30s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 40s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 50s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 60s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 70s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 80s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 90s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 100s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 20s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 30s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 40s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 50s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 60s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 70s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 80s

• Delete as per nom. Valiantis 14:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Yooden
• Delete all but Category:Entertainers who committed suicide. I could definitely see that one being useful. The rest are awful.--Mike Selinker 20:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it useful to link entertainers and suicide? We already have Category:Suicides I don't see what difference it makes what profession you are in. Also, personally I never refer to actors as entertainers, comedians maybe, but not actors.Arniep 00:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's reasonally encyclopedic. If I were doing a research paper about suicide, I might want to research some famous people who killed themselves. The category:Suicides is already colossal (which is pretty unfortunate for other reasons), so breaking it up by profession isn't out of line. I certainly wouldn't want to break it up by nationality or age.--Mike Selinker 04:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all but Category:Entertainers who committed suicide. -Sean Curtin 21:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• People can be interested in young-died artists. And if you have to draw a line, the round numbers make sense to me. Therefore: Keep Larix 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Okay, I withdraw my vote. Larix 19:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Entertainers who died in their 100s as Category:Entertainers who lived to the age of 100 and delete all others but Category:Entertainers who committed suicide, Category:Entertainers who died before age 20, Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, arbitrary. Can be inferred from the births/deahts cats. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I've had countless conversations with friends recounting various "celebrities" that died prematurely. These were started as just that and exploded into the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. that even I find useless. wknight94 01:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • so you don't want to keep all the categories? Arniep 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I created the ones I find useful - that's only three or four of the ones nominated. The rest of them seem useless to me - that includes all of the age-based suicide cats and the base category as well as the older ages. A famous person's death isn't interesting to me if they were 82 years old. wknight94 00:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Prematurely" is a bit hard to define objectively. I'm not convinced about the suicide thing. I think of categories as navigation tools. Do people read about Ian Curtis and then think, I wonder who else topped themselves? Maybe they do. If you think they do, keep the suicide one. If you don't, delete all. James James 06:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overcategorization. siafu 18:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find this interesting if well maintained. --Sachabrunel 13:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Every time I find an article about a dead entertainer, if it's not already listed in entertainer deaths, I add it to its rightful category. --User:Sevensouls 03:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, except "before 20s" and "in their 20s", these could be useful. "In their 100s" is also interesting, but if all the others were to be deleted, it would have no function. Jon Harald Søby 11:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find it interesting. The length of time a person lived is a pretty sigificant fact about the person. Q0 12:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You can tell that from their birth and death dates. Why is it useful to see all people who died in the same decade of their life? Arniep 17:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, Categories are historically correct and relevant: the life of an entertainer is very ofen judged by the way (or the age) he/she died. Leonardo.007, 19.32, 3 january 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Each article has several entires. Our society is accustom to base 10, so these do make natural categories. At the very least, we must certainly keep Category:Prematurely deceased entertainers and Category:Entertainers who committed suicideCaptain Jackson 01:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except the base suicide category. Everything else is simply over-categorization and isn't a particularly useful navigational aid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zunaid (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 January 2006
• Strong Keep, Keep them all. These categories are very fascinating and do tell a lot about the 'My Way'-lifes of entertainers, actors, musicians, ... Stefanomione 22.52, 5 januari 2006 (UTC)

• The general suicide category is probably keepable; the suicide-by-age-groups aren't needed. There's some potential value in having some kind of category scheme to group celebrities who died young, but "Prematurely deceased" isn't the way to do it. As well, the decade-base categories clearly led in this case to a profusion of unnecessary analogues, and I wouldn't know at what age to draw the cutoff line between the valid ones and the stupid ones. Keep Category:Entertainers who committed suicide; delete most of the others. Bearcat 04:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep for 20s age categories. Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s and Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 20s are very much relevant research categories, especially when we're talking about musicians. Many of the circumstances around people's deaths are similar, and suggest a pattern. Students of cultural history can see the connections that run through the biographies of many legendary artists. Plus, the phenomenon of adults dying before the age of thirty is an extraordinary circumstance. --Pinko1977 09:02, 6 January 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.

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 14:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, covered by Category:Indian monarchs. MeltBanana 01:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Rulers of India, and add Category:Prime Ministers of India and Category:Indian monarchs as subcategories. -- Ze miguel 17:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Ze miguel. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The category is a red link. What happened here? siafu 18:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • looks like user:Neutrality got a bit impatient. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who needs consensus when we have cowboys? siafu 18:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a little unfair. If a cat's empty for 24 hours it becomes speediable. But given the notice at the top it would have been nice to wait for an outcome here. Grutness...wha? 22:41, 31 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 14:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The naming format is "Blahnese newspapers" in Category:Newspapers by country and Category:Taiwanese newspapers already exists. Also, Instantnood is underhandedly trying to rename Taiwan to Republic of China by creating new categories that fit his name, since he can't get consensus to rename the EXISTING category. SchmuckyTheCat 01:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like a straightforward delete per nom. James James 02:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - cateogry already exists by diff name as per nom. novacatz 07:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Sumahoy 12:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: User:SchmuckyTheCat knows pretty well with the issues around the matter. Anybody who is familiar can tell who's underhandedly trying to fit her/his own preference by making use of CfD inappropriately. — Instantnood 16:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This category was created following precedance such as category:transportation in the Republic of China/Taiwan and category:townships in the Republic of China/Taiwan, that are in turn following Wikipedia's NPOV policies (Wikipedia:naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV, Wikipedia:naming conventions (categories)#How to name a nationality and #How to name the country. Further, this is the only category Matsu Daily and Kinmen Daily News can reside, rather than category:Asian newspapers. — Instantnood 16:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, those two can go in Taiwanese newspapers just fine. They are newspapers in the common definition of Taiwan, just not your restrictive one. SchmuckyTheCat 16:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please be reminded it's not me who's being restrictive. I'm following the NPOV policy which has been in place before I joined Wikipedia. Please don't influence the rest of the community adversely by making some false accusations on me, and providing false information regarding the matter. — Instantnood 18:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even if I generally agree with the said convention, I see this as his latest attempt to test waters in the wake of an Arbcom related to the Taiwan issue.--Huaiwei 18:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Can't we merge both categories in 'Newspapers of Taiwan/the Republic of China'? Otherwise, delete. Larix 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not likely. Since according to the Wikipedia NPOV policies, Taiwan is part of the Republic of China. — Instantnood 08:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; rename if stylistic considerations are important (but what would it be -- "Republican Chinese newspapers"?). There is no reason not to have two categories, one for Taiwanese newspapers, and one for newspapers of the ROC. After all, we have two different articles for Taiwan and Republic of China; history of Taiwan and history of the Republic of China; etc. Clearly there are newspapers that were once published in the ROC (e.g. Ta Kung Pao), but were never published in Taiwan. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Agree. Matsu Daily and Kinmen Daily News are not the only exceptions that cannot be fit into the category for Taiwan. There are a lot more defunct newspapers that have only been published in the Republic of China before 1949 and have never been published on Taiwan. As for stylistic considerations, Wikipedia:naming conventions (categories)#How to name a nationality is relevant. — Instantnood 08:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Huaiwei. Ral315 (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Schmucky has incorrectly stated that all categories are "Blahnese newspapers", Newspapers of Bosnia and Herzegovina is similarly named and is of a similar international dispute. What I really wish is that all parties to that arb case would go on wiki-break for a while instead of continuing to fight amongst themselves, I don't think the continued bickering is going to have favorable results for anyone. --Wgfinley 21:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You found one exception among 93 entries! Good job! Is this a vote trying to make a point? SchmuckyTheCat 03:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two situations are very similar, must you be so hostile all the time? --Wgfinley 03:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only to wiki-munchkins SchmuckyTheCat 03:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It might only be an exception, but there's a Wikipedia convention for that matter. Exception? Perhaps.. — Instantnood 08:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you then singlehandedly nominate all 93 sub-cats for re-naming? SchmuckyTheCat 09:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please kindly read it first. Thank you. — Instantnood 09:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Instantnood and Wgfinley. There are also other examples where "blah in X" is universally preferred, like with Democratic Republic of the Congo. It's somewhat tiresome that all discussions involving ROC, PROC, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are being dominated by the same three users bickering amongst themselves. Give it a rest already. siafu 17:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Special attention is needed from sysops. If this category is voted to deletion, it's going to be handled in contradiction to existing Wikipedia official policies. — Instantnood 17:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, it will be handled according to the policy in effect for the parent category at the current time. Use common sense, will you? SchmuckyTheCat 07:06, 6 January 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.