< July 22	July 24 >

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 11:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we need this category - for one thing, I don't think it sets a good precedent to categorize people who have been mentioed in a book that is inherently not exactly unique and groundbreaking (if we follow through with creating categories for all similar books, can you imagine in how many categories people like Michael Moore or Ronald Reagan woud end up?), and the category itself is very poorly named - if we decide we need a category for this book at all, it should be renamed to "People mentioned in 100 people etc " -- Ferkelparade π 11:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated above. Inherently POV. About a brand new book whose long-term significance is debatable. A list in the article will suffice. Gamaliel 15:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list might be of interest, but the category is not. - SimonP 19:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete trivia. If someone wants - create a list. Renata3 20:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't need a category for people mentioned in a book generally, unless that book is a significant work of fiction. -Splash 02:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, unequivocally kill it. Category is severely ideological and POV. Bearcat 07:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV, POV ... did I say POV? Courtland 15:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not NPOV. Punkmorten 19:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename to "101 people screwing up the category structure with POV". ∞Who?¿? 21:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not NPOV. Atlant 21:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV, delete. feydey 01:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category. Book is POV, of course; article seems fine, but no reason to make a separate category for every book written. Albus Dumbledore 01:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 12.73.196.40, an IP with only 10 edits.

Delete POV category. Postdlf 02:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also no separate "List of..." article, although including the list in the article about the book is OK. JamesMLane 13:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally POV. MicahMN | Talk 16:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

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 (keep) --Kbdank71 11:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The title is miscapitalised, of course, but the real problem is that this is very misleadingly titled. The explanatory text is: "A list of offensive fictional characters that portray Jewish people in a negative light. See Anti-Semitism." In other words, not anti-Semitic characters. I haven't suggested a title for the category because, first, I'm not sure that it's needed at all, and secondly, I can't think of an accurate yet snappy title. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make the point clearer (I think that one or two people may have misunderstood): an anti-Semitic character is a character who's anti-Semitic; these characters aren't anti-Semitic, they're Jews portrayed in what some people think is an anti-Semitic way. Hence the category is mistitled. (I also think that it's not needed, but that's a separate issue.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Hmm, yeah I suppose the category does have some potential for groth, but at it's currently size it seems a little pointles. There are also POV issues, at wich point does a "unsympatetic" Jewish character become a "tool" of anti-semitism? Seems a little "fuzzy" and subjective for a category. That said a "better" (though not very "snappy") name might be: "Fictional Jews acused of enforcing negative stereotyping." or some such. Kinda unwueldy though. Maybe it woulod be better to create a more generic "Fictional characters acused of enforcing negative stereotypes" though, it would probably be easier to "fill". Although still very subjective. --Sherool 11:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think it is a useful category. There might be a useful article on Literary representation of Jews that could contain examples of signigificant literary representations of Jews, both positive and negative, with commentary, rather than just a list. I say delete the category. The two individuals currently in the category—Shylock and Fagin— are both villains of a sort, but neither an entirely unsympathetic character. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment not yet ready to vote. This presents an interesting problem. Writers do include characters that embody personal traits, such as race hatred, in a magnified form to make a point, to get across a message through hyperbole. Recognizing these characters for what they are, what they were intended to be by the author, is relatively important because it contributes to positive literary criticism. I'm still thinking on my vote in this particular instance, but I don't think it's a clear cut yes or no across the board. Courtland 15:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhaps it would be better to rename the category. I just didnt want characters like like Shylocke to be in the Fictional Jews category. I really dont think its POV to say he was originally written as an anti-semitic character, considering what time Merchant was written. I know he may have a few sympathetic qualities to him, but he is the orthodox "evil, hook-nosed money-grubbing Jew" stereotype (and then you have the whole "pound of flesh" thing). --DrBat 16:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I think this is another one of those POV lists or categories. I think it would be fine to mention and explain in articles about the characters that there may be some Anti-Semetic tendancies. There are too many shades of grey to have this not cause a lot of disputes. For example, what about the Derek Vinyard character played by Edward Norton in American History X? Clearly at one point in the movie he was anti-semetic, but again, what would then define him? MicahMN | Talk 16:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

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 --Kbdank71 11:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following don't seem to follow the usual naming conventions:

• Category:Liverpool Villages and Towns → Category:Towns and villages in Liverpool
• Category:Wirral, Villages and Towns → Category:Towns and villages in Wirral (or should it be "...in the Wirral"?)
• Category:Knowsley, Villages and Towns → Category:Towns and villages in Knowsley
• Category:St Helens, Villages and Towns → Category:Towns and villages in St Helens
• Category:Sefton Villages and Towns → Category:Towns and villages in Sefton

and their parent, Category:Merseyside, Villages and Towns → Category:Towns and villages in Merseyside

Grutness...wha? 08:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these naming conversions set out? It should be in Wirral as it refers to a Borough COuncil not the penninsular.--Jirate 12:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Maybe they're not set out anywhere as conventions. I simply assumed that, because every other UK entity I'd seen named them that way, there was supposed to be a standard way of doing it. Have a look at all the subcategories of Category:Villages in England and Category:Towns in England and you'll see what I mean. And the capitalisation is wrong even if everything else is acceptable. Grutness...wha? 11:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I interest people in the Wikipedia:Category titles on a related issue? -Splash 02:36, 24 July 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 11:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A completely pointles category it only contains one article (Bolero) wich could easily fit into both of the parent categories + one disambiguation page that doesn't realy belong there anyway. Unless anyone is planning to write a few dozen articles about different kinds of Bolero I say delete. --Sherool 00:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Sherool, delete. Pavel Vozenilek 11:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, one article does not make a category. -Splash 02:36, 24 July 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 11:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An empty category about one narrow style of music. I'm no expert but I have a hard time seeing this one used for anyting usefull. Delete. --Sherool 00:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Renata3 20:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, evidently redundant. -Splash 02:36, 24 July 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 11:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another category about a music style that only contain one article (Son montuno). 'Delete. --Sherool 00:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, one article doesn't make a category. -Splash 02:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per above. MicahMN | Talk 16:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

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 11:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Originally created by 24.30.157.246 to house Donald Duck (orange juice) (which I later merged into Donald Duck; now empty. tregoweth 19:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Renata3 20:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant per nominator. -Splash 02:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete MicahMN | Talk 16:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

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.