< February 12	February 14 >

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 (But hold off delete for a few days to give time for Listify) -- TexasAndroid 13:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Fallout boy 04:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 05:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd actually suggest "People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive" (with apostrophe-S).--Mike Selinker 00:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a marketing gimmick. It is not a significant identifying characteristic of the people involved. It is U.S. centric to categorise in this way for an American magazine only, and would be out of the question to do it for every country in which such a list has been published. CalJW 10:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CalJW. This type of information is more properly presented in a list, as it's inappropriate to classify a subject by this kind of category. Postdlf 18:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CalJW. --maclean25 00:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial. Carina22 09:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite the fluffiness, this is way more significant than just any magazine list. I would say it's in the top three of annual magazine issues in America, along with the Time Magazine Person of the Year (see above) and maybe the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. It does become a defining feature of the people chosen. (Besides, this started as a recommendation to change the capitalization. How did it get to a vote for deletion?)--Mike Selinker 12:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CalJW. Pavel Vozenilek 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify with alternate naming suggested by User:Mike Selinker. this is a marketing gimmick, U.S. centric, etc. true, but this a very major magazine its list is well-known in North America Mayumashu 04:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Marketing driven trivia. Bhoeble 13:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per CalJW and others. JW 11:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a publicity stunt. Golfcam 21:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. BD2412 T 16:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Listify. per Mayumashu. --Vizcarra 17:41, 21 February 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 -- TexasAndroid 18:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent renaming of the Law and Order categories, this one should also be renamed.--Fallout boy 04:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Carina22 09:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE and Listify 132.205.45.148 17:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly use list if the information has any value. Pavel Vozenilek 19:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but restrict the contents to the regular cast. Bhoeble 13:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and restrict the contents to the regular cast. Postdlf 20:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and purge per Bhoeble and Postdlf. - EurekaLott 20:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify per pavel. ER actors implies regular cast. --Vizcarra 07:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave the same OR Rename to something like "Guest Actors and Actresses Appearing on 'ER'" It's a good list, and shouldn't be deleted. Emily 17:10, 20 February 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 to Category:Radio stations in Albany, New York. -- TexasAndroid 18:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To conform with the other categories in Category:Radio stations in New York. Kuroki Mio 2006 21:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after comments. Vegaswikian 06:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Albany is a disambiguation page with about 20 or so other Albany's, a number of whom could have several radio stations. Suggest Category:Radio stations in Albany, NY instead. - Ian ≡ talk 03:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC). Rename to Category:Radio stations in Albany, New York -- Ian ≡ talk 00:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albany, New Zealand has several. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Radio stations in Albany, New York to match the other category that already exists and needed this type of disambiguation. Vegaswikian 15:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Radio stations in Albany, New York as per Vegaswikian. - TexasAndroid 16:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Radio stations in Albany, New York as per Vegaswikian. Sumahoy 02:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Vegaswikian. Bearcat 09:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Radio stations in Albany, New York per Ian and Vegaswikian . - N (talk) 21:53, 20 February 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 --Latinus (talk (el:)) 21:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a mention of the famous drivers in the Prius article would be appropriate, but creating a category is going a overboard, and reaks of product placement.--Fallout boy 04:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Piccadilly 18:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Would make a fine list in Prius article. -Will Beback 21:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bad precedent. Trivia in relation to the individuals concerned. CalJW 10:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Pehaps moving the category to Category:Hybrid vehicle drivers would be more accepted? My original intention wasn't trivia or product placement - it was to categorize environmentally-conscious people's vehicle choices. As such, the Toyota Prius is the most visible of the celebrity-driven hybrids. I would also like to expand this to politicians - as I'm sure it would be intriging information for their constituents. The lorax 21:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Category:Chauffered people might instead be the result for many politicians. Postdlf 22:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category:People by vehicles they have driven is a lousy category scheme. I'd delete this even as a list. Postdlf 22:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How many categories would we need for Jay Leno? Vegaswikian 23:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the others. Carina22 09:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless we want Humvee drivers, BMW drivers, Cadillac drivers, Skoda drivers (ugh!) Carlossuarez46 19:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn trivia. Pavel Vozenilek 19:37, 15 February 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 -- TexasAndroid 18:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too obscure to be of any use. - EurekaLott 04:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; useless classification scheme. Postdlf 04:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I created this article after observing two relatively new malls in the Richmond, Virginia area (Chesterfield Town Center and Short Pump Town Center) were built in the far suburbs. I noted that other malls have this naming scheme and probably have some similarities. It is an interesting urban sprawl phenomenon that 100% privately owned commercial areas are being built up in the far suburbs that have the name Town Center as if it were Main Street USA MPS 04:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably true of most malls constructed during a certain period of time (there's one in my hometown) because it's just a marketing decision. The category is essentially just an example of "Shopping malls by name," which doesn't exactly make for a sound classificatory scheme. Nor does the title of the category even suggest what you were trying to get at; at first glance, it looks like it's about shopping malls actually in a town center. I don't think "Category:Suburban shopping malls named as if they were in urban areas" is really an improvement, however. Postdlf 06:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. These would standout in the list of malls from their name alone. Vegaswikian 06:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In the UK, and probably most of the rest of Europe most shopping centres are in town centres. Piccadilly 18:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, potentially huge, unless limited to those containing "Town Center" in name (and this won't work). Pavel Vozenilek 23:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons already mentioned. Sumahoy 02:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lest it inspire Galleria shopping malls, Fashion Centre shopping malls, The Mall at Place shopping malls, etc. - choster 18:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper... what's wrong with having these other categories? Richmond has a <<Location>> Fashion Park and a <<State Name>> Center Commons. I'm sure they laughed at animal taxonomy when it came out, too. MPS 07:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper but neither is collection of everything. Categories are intended for the most important information, not for every trivia. Pavel Vozenilek 19:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Grouping these articles in one way is quite enough as they are not at all important. Carina22 09:00, 15 February 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 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category sets a poor precedent. Articles about baseball personnel already tend to be listed in many categories, and adding even more categories for minor league teams will only make things messier. - EurekaLott 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are only 30 odd major league baseball teams, but there are already 96 English football clubs with a category. This is a natural development and should be encouraged rather than resisted. Around about the time I started posting a category for an NFL team was deleted because there was no precedent for it, which looks pretty ridiculous with hindsight. CalJW 10:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The precedent is already well established and is working well with football (soccer) clubs, with relevant subcategories for players, etc. I see no reason why others sports shouldn't get the same treatment. - N (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TheGrappler 22:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing wrong with this.--Mike Selinker 23:18, 20 February 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 consensous -- TexasAndroid 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Mormon actors and Category:Christian actors. These are useless subdivisions, as these individuals' acting has nothing to do with their religion, nor are these random intersections of traits culturally significant in any way (don't exactly see a lot of books on Morman actors). These accordingly fall short of rational principles for categorizing people. Postdlf 01:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well there is an article on LDS cinema which is about Mormon cinema essentially.--T. Anthony 06:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mormon actors isn't about acting in Mormon-themed productions of any kind, but just includes whatever Mormons happen to have become actors. Yippee. Postdlf 06:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably so, but a note could be added to fix that. Lists on "religion plus acting" are mostly not allowed either. (List of entertainers in Christian media has survived so far by being mostly unnoticed and intensely strict.) And a religion can influence the choice of roles even if the person is not primarily in religious films. For example Mormons I don't think are allowed to smoke or drink alcohol and are strongly discouraged from swearing. This could certainly effect roles. Also I don't see why Category:Mormon actors is any more a problem than Category:Bisexual actors. I mean does bisexuality effect acting, any more than Mormonism would?--T. Anthony 07:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) I don't know what you mean by "lists on 'religion plus acting' are mostly not allowed either"—could you elaborate and explain why? 2) Re: religion influencing the choice of roles, do you have a source to point to that has discussed this in terms of Mormons and acting? If this is not a relationship that has been previously studied in culture or academia, then making this categorization constitutes original research. 3) List the bisexual actors category for deletion and I will vote to delete that as well. Regardless, "Category X is bad, so we might as well keep Category Y" is a very poor rationale. 4) The criteria isn't whether one simply "affects" the other (if that were the case, every permutation of traits would have its own category), but instead whether the relationship is culturally significant, and Mormonism-and-acting is not. Postdlf 06:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 19#Category:Bisexual actors--T. Anthony 15:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few names in the category would fit. Richard Dutcher does work in LDS cinema. Larry Bagby was in the Mormon film Saints and Soldiers and served as a missionary for two years in Argentina. Corbin Allred was in the same film but his mission was in Australia. I seem to recall it being involved in Billy Barty's career as well, but I don't recall the details. The kid from Napoleon Dynamite tends to play Mormon characters. Many of the other names don't seem to fit, but in most any actor category the two things aren't entirely related. There's enough actors with articles though that subcats are necessary.--T. Anthony 07:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Potential for massive and thus unusable and unmaintainable name collection (especially the Christian actors). People for whom one of the categories fits as primary characteristic should be put into closely guarded and mercilessly pruned list (lists are more maintainable than categories) and the list added to "See also". Existence of other dubious categories is not precedent but incentive to delete these as well. Pavel Vozenilek 23:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No correlation is implied, it simply aids in navigation to subcategorize all "mormons" Category:Latter Day Saints into occupations. It will not foster name collection, it simply subcategorizes people who are already categorized by religion. --Vizcarra 23:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it's kept the stringent policies (including mentioning the issue in the article itself, with source citations) like those at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people are needed. I have removed many people miscategorized, inappropriately categorized, or just categorized without any evidence of the religious affiliation from similar categories. Carlossuarez46 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• These strike me as the textbook example of using a category as a substitute for a list. Lists of actors by religious affiliation would be fine, but categories don't particularly suit the guidelines for categorization by cultural affiliation. Listify and delete. Bearcat 19:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were lists of Christian, or other religion, entertainers but they were deleted.--T. Anthony 07:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you share the links to the AFDs? I'd like to see the rationale, because I think it would readily apply here. I can't imagine how a relationship that isn't even valid as an annotated list article could be valid as a category. Postdlf 17:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if this works: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian entertainers. It wasn't just actors, but I said it was a generalized entertainers list. If you check the talk page there was some debate on whether concensus was really reached. Especially as delete voters included Antidote, and StabRule--T. Anthony 03:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway right before it was deleted I'd altered it where the list was mostly of entertainers who are also ministers, priests, nuns, missionaries, or supporters of Christian films. By that point no one was paying attention to how it had changed. (Hence accusations I "save" lists unjustly are inaccurate. My effort to fix List of Catholic musicians had even less effect)Some of that standard is reflected in List of entertainers in Christian media, but that list is actually even stricter.--T. Anthony 03:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Christian actors" is pointless, it should really be "Roman Catholic actors" or the like. But "Mormon actors" is definitely specific enough and is a good sub-cat of "Latter Day Saints". JackO'Lantern 23:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roman Catholic actors" was CFD'd awhile ago. Postdlf 02:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which was kind of dumb. There are enough Catholics active enough in religious films, or the religious life see Dolores Hart, that it could've been warranted if done right.--T. Anthony 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then do it right rather than trying to keep these blandly defined, useless categories. You keep on mistaking these categories for something that they're not, or hoping that they will become something that they simply weren't created to be. Let's get rid of these and then you will be free to start new ones that aren't subject to the same flaws. Postdlf 04:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*****Why do that when you can simply add a note to existing categories and then take out irrelevancies. I'll show you how.--T. Anthony 06:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

******Okay Category:Mormon actors is now almost entirely people who do LDS films or did missionary work for LDS. There are three names that might be exceptions (Gordon Jump, Billy Barty, and Paul Walker), but they can be removed if need be. Several names of actors in films in the LDS cinema are currently red so it can expand. There's also a note about what qualifies. I'm willing to do this for other religions if no one else will.--T. Anthony 06:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. There is a List of Christians in Entertainment and Media that covers all this. Maybe not the Mormons, but then again maybe so. I hadn't seen it earlier, I withdrew my keep vote.--T. Anthony 07:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your reconsideration. Please feel free to contact me as well if a list article you support is up for deletion, as I would frequently support maintaining lists as an alternative to categories. Postdlf 19:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all very confusing. You'd be surprised how many lists I've worked on that were deleted because "this should be a category not a list." Then I come here and categories like that get "this should be a list not a category." Still if a list is good I'm good with that. My only remaining concern is that I'm just not sure the List of Christians in Entertainment and Media will include those in the Category:Mormon actors. Many Christians vociferously object to Mormons being listed as Christians so might balk at adding those names. (The remaining names in the Mormon category are all valid as far as I can tell. It turned out Billy Barty was more actively Mormon than I thought) So I've withdrawn my keep vote, but not precisely switched to delete yet. In least I don't think I did.--T. Anthony 00:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are not alone in your confusion. I just spent a year trying to shepherd a consensus about guidelines for categorization. Consensus WAS reached, and the guidelines have been posted for quite a while now. But I suspect that most people are unaware of the new guidelines and I see many people quoting chapter and verse of policies that are outdated. As this is a Wiki, you can’t really expect to have clarity and consistency. If you expect things to be consistent, you will probably be frustrated. That said, over time, custom will evolve to make some things into lists and some into categories and others into navigational templates. This page is as much about discussing policy and guidelines as it is applying them. I am undecided about what I think about these proposed deletions. In general, I think categories should remain unless there is a compelling reason to delete it. I also don't like to see people's efforts deleted without working out a solution that they find acceptable. So I'm waiting to see what happens in this discussion. -- Samuel Wantman 07:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with nomination. --Kbdank71 13:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JW 11:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move to a Lists. It's information, and Wikipedia is about information. Mormanism and Christianity are defining characteristics. To subcategorize by occupation is relevant information to those interested, or doing research, on the topic. To delete the information would be raw censorship. But I don't see why you shouldn't move the information to "lists", rather than keeping them as "categories". pat8722 16:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your concern about "censorship" is misplaced; this is about editing based on concerns of relevance and information organization. I hope you're not suggesting that nothing should ever be deleted. Regardless, I'm always fine with list articles in lieu of categories, because I think trivial categories are obtrusive and harmful, while trivial lists can just be ignored by anyone who doesn't like them. I didn't suggest listifying because I'm indifferent to whether such a list exists, but I'll support transferring the information to lists if you'll support deleting the categories. Postdlf 18:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if a reader is interested in Mormanism, then they are likely to be interested in those mormons who are actors. Oh for the time when we have Wikipedia:Category math feature and no longer need to worry about such debates. With CMF we'll just be able to find the interestion of Category:Actors and Category:Mormons and be done with it. --Salix alba (talk) 10:24, 21 February 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 to Category:Anti-road protest. -- TexasAndroid 18:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restricing the category just to protestors is too narrow. Salix alba (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that protestors is too narrow, because there are several articles about anti-road protest with nowhere good to file them, but I think Category:Anti-road protest is better, because it's about the concept instead of individual events. NickelShoe
• Support rename by Salix alba. Plural form is common norm for category names. Pavel Vozenilek 23:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--The plural applies when the category refers to individual people or places. But when a concept is referenced, the plural is not appropriate (such as Category:Civil disobedience, Category:Anatomy. Perhaps Category:Anti-road activism would be preferred? NickelShoe 01:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Anti-road protest is fine with me. Not sure about activism, protest is a more generally used term and the 'anti' does seem to imply a protest. --Salix alba (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Anti-road protest --GCarty 12:17, 20 February 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 15:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created the category myself but then realized that the Category:LGBT-related films already existed. The category is effectively useless and has no articles. --– sampi (talk•contrib) 00:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy. - TexasAndroid 16:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy, delist. Pavel Vozenilek 23:21, 13 February 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.