< March 10	March 12 >

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 with fire. Syrthiss 22:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A category for COD2 clans? Gimme a break. Delete. Thunderbrand 19:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Empty category. It's unlikely that there are many (any?) clans notable enough to deserve their own article, anyway. — TKD::Talk 00:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Doubtful that there are a significant number of notable clans. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. Syrthiss 22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite a bit of potential overlap here.--Mike Selinker 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Catredirect. Somehow I think editors will look for the castles one and not realize that that other exists. Vegaswikian 22:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That sounds good to me too.--Mike Selinker 22:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Speedy move and delete — xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicates Category:History of Luxembourg. Move the one article to the correct category. Delete JonHarder 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy move and delete. Pavel Vozenilek 01:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy move and delete as per Pavel. David Kernow 04:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 — xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicates Category:Lisp programming language; redirects to an article (which is really annoying to me—is there a policy about redirecting a category to an article?); only article in this cat is mainly on another topic. JonHarder 15:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete (or really merge). Probably just simple error in duplication. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, obvious. Pavel Vozenilek 01:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy delete, as above. David Kernow 04:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. —akghetto ^talk 18:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Underused, unneeded, and an all around bad idea, lots of potential for abuse.

• Keep. Part of an established structure of Category:Murder victims by nationality.--Mike Selinker 17:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Then it should be retitled "Murder Victims of Mexican Nationality". The current title is ambiguous, doesn't indicate if the persons on the list are Mexican, their muderers are Mexican, or if the murders simply occurred in Mexico. The clarification might hep populate the list, too. Tubezone 00:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No nationality category currently disambiguates this way (the same would be true for Greek, Italian, and so on). But it's reasonable to put a sentence on the category that says "This category is for murder victims from Mexico."--Mike Selinker 01:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep I like the ambiguity of the name. It's best to have everyone murdered in Mexico and Mexicans murdered abroad in the same place. ReeseM 01:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Mike Selinker. Nationality is an appropriate way to subdivide people categories. Postdlf 16:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. Syrthiss 22:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A list of Non German born football players who are in Germany." Very vague criterion to go by which has caused confusion (see talk page), somewhat loosely associated topic. Also overcategorization: A much-traveled fooballer like Thomas Myhre could end up with Non-English Football players in England, Non-Turkish Football players in Turkey, Non-Scottish Football players in Scotland and Non-Danish Football players in Denmark. Punkmorten 08:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep But change the "f" to lower case. The pattern of international player movement is an important aspect of football, and such categories will allow all the players in a league to be contained in just two categories, ie one like this and the native one. Bhoeble 13:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. very, very low encyclopedical value and quite ambiguous. Is František Straka (on Czech wiki [1]) mere Czech or is he enough of German? (He has German citizenship for over decade and doesn't have the Czech one). Pavel Vozenilek 14:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Pavel Vozenilek's point is no more persuasive as a reason for deleting this than it would be as a reason for deleting Category:German people. ReeseM 01:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You would be suprised how big problem German people-like categories are in historical context of Czech lands. It is likely unsolvable (with current category system). Pavel Vozenilek 01:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Football players are already categorised by nationality, club and position, and I fail to see how adding whether they born inside/outside the country/countries they play(ed) in really adds any value. It's just additional category clutter. Qwghlm 00:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep The foreign players issue has regular bursts of prominence in the football media, including one in the last week. Foreign players have been regulated in the past and are still to some extent. Indeed UEFA (or possibly FIFA) is looking at imposing new restrictions in the near future. Osomec 07:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete I don't believe this category in itself adds much value. An article discussing the internationalization of club soccer might do a much better job of the effects on the game and provide an overview of the impact on specific countries, leagues, clubs (esp. wrt finances), players, etc; without requiring a massive number of categories all of which require significant maintenance.Megamemnon 03:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete I agree with Megamemnon on the "Internationalization of European football"; Also: the title is missleading since a number of soccer players aquire German citizenship - so what is this differentiation for, when it is so floating. It seems some people are obsessed with nationalities! 14 March 2006
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. How are we to determine who is German? The Nuremberg laws? Carlossuarez46 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Carlossuarez46's comment loooks pretty silly unless he is prepared to nominate category:German footballers too? Scranchuse 14:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. If I created a Category:Non-American basketball players in the United States, a lot of people would find it offensive, and it would probably get shot down in a heartbeat. This is an all-around bad idea. — Mar. 18, '06 [14:51] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
  • Comment: Freak, I'd actually be receptive to your proposed basketball category, although I'd rather call it "International basketball players in the United States". The NBA has an official definition of "international" as any player not from the 50 United States and the District of Columbia. For example, Tim Duncan is counted as "international", even though he is a U.S. citizen by birth and represents the USA internationally, because he's a native of the U.S. Virgin Islands. — Dale Arnett 18:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment. Yeah, actually, a category like that might be a good thing to include in the NBA categories. Either that or a list of that type would be cool for getting Duncan and Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki in one place.--Mike Selinker 22:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. —akghetto ^talk 18:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CfR tag was added on 25 November, but never added to this page. Seems like a fairly standard move from movies to films, so I renominate. Tim | meep in my general direction 07:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 13:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename. The term "films" is standard. — TKD::Talk 07:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename. as per nom. Alan Liefting 05:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Her Pegship 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. —akghetto ^talk 18:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They only ever released one album. A catagory of one is not much of a catagory. Arturus 06:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete if above correct. David Kernow 11:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep I believe it is well established that all artists should have such a category so that the system of categorising albums by artist is comprehensive. Bhoeble 13:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete It is not established to create its own category for every article. Pavel Vozenilek 14:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So what? Not all articles naturally form a category of one. ReeseM 01:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, unexpandable. Punkmorten 16:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, for two reasons. First, albums should have categories by artist, regardless of how many things can fill that category. Second, Blind Faith has a second album, a much rarer album called Morgan Rehearsals (or sometimes, just Rehearsals). Nobody's written an article about that yet, but they could. So keep.--Mike Selinker 22:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as per Mike Selinker ReeseM 01:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep There are many precedents for keeping this. This comes up frequently for bands with only one album, and the decision is always keep. The reason for having categories like this is to keep Category:Albums by artist free of individual albums. To allow a user to look up articles by artist they must be categorized by artist. -- Samuel Wantman 08:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep to help to fully populate category:Albums by artist. Carina22 13:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. Syrthiss 22:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These would be known as pseudoscientists Jim62sch 02:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Unrecognized non-scientist scientists? I think not. Inherently prone to POV interpretation, and as the nom states, there is already a word for this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous, non-standard terminology – an outsider category? David Kernow 11:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete/merge with category:pseudoscientists. — Dunc|☺ 12:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as per KillerChihuahua Bhoeble 13:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 14:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Guettarda 15:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Don't Delete --cda 15:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC) You guys don't get it. A pseudoscientist uses research methods that are erroneously regarded as scientific. An outsider scientist uses accepted methods but the scientist himself is not accepted either because he does not have an advanced degree or he publishes on his own or he works alone and not with an institution. Think Thomas Edison. Maybe there is a better name for it. But I think it's a valid category.Reply[reply]

Category:Unorthodox scientists...? ...or is that too POV? David Kernow 16:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete --Khoikhoi 04:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Maybe under a new name that is more descriptive. When I think of outsider scientists, I think of people like Alfred Wegener, who couldn’t demonstrate a mechanism for continental drift and was shunned, or Dr. Christy G. Turner II who wrote “Man Corn” and was shunned because many people didn’t want to think about their treasured Amerindian research subjects as being cannibals. I also think about the legitimate scientists who have challenged NIH definitions and have been excluded from the granting process as a result. This is very different than pseudoscientists, although they may be shunned as well. It is an area where the boundary line is grey (gray), and certainly has the potential for non-objectivity. But merging “outsider scientists” with “pseudo-scientists” would seem to lead to an even greater potential for abuse. Dr. Robert H. Goddard was an outsider scientist for most of his career. Bejnar 18:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak keep but rename to... erm... something else. We need something to indicate that people like Tesla and Wegener were considered contemporaneously as cranks but aren't now. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep but Rename, perhaps to Category:Independent scientists. -- Samuel Wantman 10:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prefer something like Category:Unorthodox scientists to Category:Independent scientists; perhaps everyone who expresses an opinion here might be asked to vote for one of (say) three alternatives, Category:Unorthodox scientists, Category:Independent scientists, or another name...?  Regards, David Kernow 12:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete It is their field of research that matters. This seems to be promoting a pov. Scranchuse 14:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. —akghetto ^talk 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abraham Lincoln is in an awful lot of categories even without this one. IMHO it adds nothing with having. Delete. Hawkestone 01:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete unrelated to just about anyone's notability. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep Just because YOU aren't interested in the informationis not reason to prevent those who ARE interested, access to it.pat8722

No one is interested in article about a historical person infested with dozens of silly categories. Pavel Vozenilek 14:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't LOOK at what doesn't interest you. I agree that a rename to Cat Fanciers would be appropriate, at least LISTIFY before you delete. The information should not just lost. pat8722 22:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe you've said this in every CFD you've ever participated in. How many list articles have you created? No one's stopping you from saving this information in that form. Do it. Postdlf 05:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete trivia is not a category. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Listify. Not well enough defined to be a category. —Blotwell 05:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Listify as per Blotwell. David Kernow 11:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Seems like indiscriminate info and unencyclopedic to me. Alternatively, listify as this should be verifiable and that should best be done through a list. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete People should not be categorised by hobby or interest. Bhoeble 13:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Just few weeks ago on CfD Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_24#Category:Cat_lovers Pavel Vozenilek 14:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Overly broad and poorly defined (after all, aren't all good people cat lovers?). Not encyclopaedic. Delete. Guettarda 15:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Listify entries that can be verified. If consensus rules to keep the aritcle, I'd suggest changing its name to "Category:Cat fanciers", which is the accepted term. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 23:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Why do people vote listify? Is the closing admin supposed to do the list or what? What if he or she doesn't feel like it. Better to have a nice unambiguous row of deletes to kill this off. ReeseM 01:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oh lordy, give me a break...this category doesn't (and can't) impart any encyclopedically relevant information about the people to whom it's applied; it's not a defining characteristic, and has no bearing whatsoever on why these people belong in an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat 03:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Not a useful point of connection, though it might be worth mentioning in the text of the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete of course. Carina22 13:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename or Keep. As the creator of the category, I was well aware it would be seen as peculiar, and thus left a rationale on the talk page. After seeing Category:Vegetarians make it out alive here, I noticed how there are small mentions of a specific person being an animal lover (often cat for some reason) in several wikipedia and nonwikipedia articles. This led me to conduct some research on the large amounts of "cat books" out there and led me to notice that the listing of a cat fancier was not uncommon. To me, the category is equivalent in oddity to the Vegetarian one, and frankly very similar in meaning. It is more "fun facts" than anything, but I've seen many "fun fact" categories and doubted it would be this controversial (it's an innocent topic anyway). But seeing as the category will probably be deleted, I'm calling for a possible rename to "cat fanciers" instead. That way there is a more stringent categorization. Antidote
• Delete. Simpley too broad, no matter the name. Vegaswikian 00:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as too broad, not well defined, and unencyclopedic. I have seen this category added to Frederic Chopin twice, with no explanation, justification, or source, despite requests on the talk page. It smacks of fancruft to me, in any case. Makemi 05:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete A trivial attribute of the lives of important people. Osomec 07:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. It is not very encyclopeadic. Alan Liefting 07:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Trivial and ill-defined. It often depends on the cat, now doesn't it? Postdlf 05:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. See inclusion of Franz Liszt, Maurice Ravel, H. G. Wells, Paul Klee, Freddie Mercury in the category, with no mention of their relationship with cats in their articles - this amounts to unreferenced assertions which are against Wikipedia policy and should be removed. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Except in the zoophilic sense, there are no objective criteria for who belongs and who doesn't. Carlossuarez46 22:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. —akghetto ^talk 18:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inherently POV, and blatant "commentary by categorization" Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. For gosh sake, the description says: Impostors are people who pretend to be something other than what they are.. If I told someone at a bar that I was a doctor as a pick-up line, would I make it to the category?! (actually, I am a "Dr.", but not an M.D. :-)). Hopelessly vague, POV, and attempts to comment by categorization. I'm still going with "delete", but I cleaned up the description so as not to be quite so hopelessly overbroad. I do see that there are something like "professional imposters" who might be grouped together, but the prior description was just so very jarring in claiming essentially anyone with a biography. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy Delete it. I'd hate to say 'speedy', but it is a worthless category. Everyone can make it to the list. Funnybunny 01:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Look at the articles. Many of these people are known mainly for being impostors. Where else are they supposed to go? Hawkestone 01:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would the category be worth keeping if were renamed Category:People famous for being impostors or the like?  David Kernow 02:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not clear to me that they need to to "go" anywhere, per se. But at the least, the description needs to be more specific about who is meant to be included. I admit I first learned of the category when someone added Ward Churchill to the category, with the meaning amounting to no more than "I don't like Churchill, and disagree with some of his claims"... but as the description iswas written, it doesn'tdidn't clearly exclude that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep This is legitimate information, of use to many. Individual entries can be disputed on the corresponding talk pages. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with POV, and no Lulu, you don't make the list, because you are not publicly recognized by anyone. We don't need to add the word "famous" to the category, because that is always assumed. pat8722 04:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and keep a tight rein on it. I am thinking of people such as Frank Abagnale, Princess Caraboo and the like, whose claim to fame is that they were imposters. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. It is a well-recognized area of scholarly inquiry. Pseudologia fantastica is a classified psychological disorder of long standing. There are numerous academic books on impostors. Many of the Wikipedia entries so categorized describe people who are famous solely for their impostorship. I do agree that the article on impostors could be better written, and should summarize some of the psychological literature on the topic.Pokey5945 05:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as per pat8722 and Pokey5945 Bhoeble 13:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Troll magnet. Spend the time on the articles instead of creating vague categories. Pavel Vozenilek 14:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, obviously. And don't go around deleting the category notices on individual pages until this discussion is sorted. Ward Churchill certainly doesn't belong here (or not until all the questions regarding his history are sorted), but, equally, Grey Owl and Princess Caraboo certainly do. Vizjim 01:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So your position is that no category membership may be changed while a CfD is ongoing, no matter how inappropriate?! I really can't see how Grey Owl fits, despite your disingenuous edit comment restoring it. It's true I didn't happen to notice that category member before the CfD, but that hardly makes every member accurate. This sort of POV pushing is exactly the problem I have with the category itself. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • I've replied to your point on the Grey Owl talk page.Vizjim 09:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Very hard to understand nomination. ReeseM 01:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep If there are vandalism problems or non-objectivity problems, deals with those, don't eliminate a useful category.Bejnar 17:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Valid category in my opinion. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - Most of the people included in this category are notable only for being impostors. It is a valid category. - Chadbryant 20:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Notable impostors. Although notability is "understood", the rename might satisy those who perceive "Impostors" as too broad and "Famous impostors" as too obvious. I second Chadbryant. Her Pegship 13:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[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.