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 13:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant POV with political agenda. --Tbeatty 23:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as proposed. Alan Liefting 23:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and, if desired, make into a list where at least each entry can have citations. I don't think it can exist as a category because category entries cannot be directly cited. Herostratus 02:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV with unsourced claims. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. This is one of those things that probably seemed like a better idea than it actually is. I'm no fan of the Bush administration by any stretch of the imagination, but the category system is not the place for this kind of discussion. Bearcat 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Troll and pov-pusher magnet. The word alleged makes the category open to abuse of WP:V and WP:NPOV. FloNight ^talk 11:02, 7 March 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. Syrthiss 13:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not likely to be populated. Alan Liefting 23:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 1 entry. Article River steward redlinks, so at least until the article is written, deleted.Herostratus 02:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are many notable keepers of rivers. They go by different names in the various states. Once a generic article is written then the appropiately named category can be created. Vegaswikian 20:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Thatcher131 02:29, 7 March 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. Syrthiss 13:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicates Category:Independence movement of Pakistan; category empty. JonHarder 21:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Obsolete category. Green Giant 03:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary duplicate. FloNight ^talk 11:32, 7 March 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. Syrthiss 13:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicates Category:Aspen MLT Comics; category empty. JonHarder 21:33, 4 March 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. Syrthiss 13:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of category is just asking for trouble. If somebody wants to maintain this as a list, that's fine, but I shudder at the thought of proliferating guest stars categories. - EurekaLott 17:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Alan Liefting 23:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. Per nom, some actors have been guest stars on dozens of shows, we don't want people to be in like 40 categories, Herostratus 02:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. KramarDanIkabu 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We took care of the similar Simpsons cat on Feb 8. ×Meegs 19:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I shudder, sometimes, at what people consider important. Bearcat 09:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's WP:V, WP:NPOV, with plenty of WP:RS. There is a lot of interest in this TV show. It was considered news worthy when actors were guest stars on this show. FloNight ^talk 11:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. Carlossuarez46 02:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need. List of guest stars on Friends far predates the cat. ×Meegs 13:09, 8 March 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. Syrthiss 13:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created and has been left empty for a long time. Or at least rename to Government of Sabah per Wikipedia's style. __earth ^(Talk) 12:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It was created in January and last edited yesterday. Is that a long time? Rename is ok. --JeffW 14:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A cat is not a collection of external link. Look carefully at the cat. Do you see any relevent entry? In fact, there's There are 0 pages in this section of this category written on the page. He is misuing cat.__earth ^(Talk) 02:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was assuming that he would populate it, but he's had 1.5 months to do so, so I withdraw my objection. --JeffW 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a part of cleanup. Pavel Vozenilek 22:17, 9 March 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 speedy delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 13:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the category is the worng version of Category:Cape Verdean footballers --Matthew hk 10:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing in it, so just speedy delete and recreate? David Kernow 17:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Alan Liefting 23:16, 4 March 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. Syrthiss 13:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category serves no purpose and should be deleted. Instead the main article should be categorized. Delete. -- Domino theory 09:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand. How is a article categorized? --JeffW 05:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither Greek, Hungarian, Romanian, Hrvatiand or other Wikipedias have such category and if they don't it is unlikely to be populated here. Pavel Vozenilek 23:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see how it matters that other wikipedias have/don't have it. Other wikis don't have even a single article on the matter! If you look at the article for Alcibiade Diamandi, you'll notice that there still are things to be added to the category as time goes by (hopefully). The point that it is small is absurd: sure, it will always be smaller, but that does not prevent other cats from existing. Is there a fix number of things you must fit into a cat, one I wasn't informed of? I also don't appreciate that the cat has been emptied before notive was given of intended deletion. Dahn 12:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the content will grow the category could be always re-added. Having category for just one article is ..., hmm,... not good. Pavel Vozenilek 22:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look through it? It has five articles at the moment, and should have six - except the article Metsovo has an error in it, which does not allow it to be included in a category. I also think this cat is essential, as it is an autonomous topic (and I fail to see why it should be connected with Romanian history). Dahn 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is nothing but a place holder for a single article. Apart from a category all of its own that article may also be found through no less than nine other categories(!), and I do not see the point for these excesses. I think we'd all like to see the topic developed much more, but take a look at Category:Independent State of Croatia for some relevant scope regarding categorization (except for the inappropriately added biography). -- Domino theory 22:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? Then why don't you take a look at Category:Vichy regime? (People listed there only partly coincide with Category:French fascists etc., and they are figures of relevance in the context.) I think that having biographies included is a very important part of a category: you get to see at once the connections between a Vlach adventurer, a Romanian professor, and a Hungarian prince - which is why this topic is on its own. Plus, this one doesn't lead to Greece or Romania (contrary to the vague Category:Romanian World War II people or Category:Greek World War II people (the second one is as accurate as calling Staf de Clerq a "Belgian" World War II person - sure they need be included there as well, but the main connection is with Vlach/Flemish history, and the best way to establish it is by placing them in context). I also think that having a category to begin with may prevent people from creating 40,000 cats for the same topic; as it is, the article and the category (which is quite frequent) fit in several categories together (if you feel like it, exclude the article and link it only to its eponymous cat). I really don't see why it should be revolting that a topic fits in many categories... Is it because people can find it easier? Is it because they have more understanding of the subject from the start? Dahn 19:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Legitimate cat, it seems. Alexander 007 02:45, 10 March 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. Syrthiss 13:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such over-categoratisation is unnessarcary and best left a filmography of a respective actors page. I realise the significance of having categories like Films by director by I fail to see a similar reasoning for Films by actor nor can I see any similar sort of category. Delete CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 07:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary, simply replicates filmography. Chairman S. ^Talk 08:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as proposed. Scranchuse 17:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as proposed. Alan Liefting 23:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, over categorization. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:37, 5 March 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 Nicole Kidman... uhh I mean the category. Syrthiss 13:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only houses the Nicole Kidman main article and atm has the subcat of Nicole Kidman films which is also up for CFD, see above. Delete CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 07:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as proposed. Scranchuse 17:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 23:04, 4 March 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. Syrthiss 13:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two words: Over-categorization. Delete. Delete. Delete. —akghetto ^talk 07:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It was a subcatagory of People by bloodtype which I put on CfD. I should have CfD'd this one at the same time. --JeffW 14:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Of course. CG 14:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Alan Liefting 23:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For what it's worth, I can think of exceedingly few people whose blood type is a matter of public record, and unless we think that a hospital is ever going to use Wikipedia instead of a blood test to determine the appropriate blood type for a celebrity who needs a transfusion, I can think of even fewer for whom there's a need to know this kind of information. Bearcat 09:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment it s common to know and discuss blood type in Japan and its affect on personality, but i m not suggesting it should be kept (as shouldn t any cat pages listing things such as zodiac star signs) Mayumashu 15:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Over-categorization and would be hard to verify. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 03:00, 8 March 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. Syrthiss 13:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one member. 24.177.122.249 06:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And that one member is already filed in Category:American radio personalities as well. Unless somebody can provide a really convincing reason to subcategorize them by state, delete. Bearcat 09:23, 6 March 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 Speedy Renamed -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC) This cat name should be plural. 24.177.122.249 06:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename - EurekaLott 17:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename. David Kernow 17:55, 4 March 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. Syrthiss 13:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as empty and redundant (every Transformers toy is also a Transformers character). JIP | Talk 18:14, 5 March 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. Syrthiss 13:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles. Useless. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Three and growing. I plan to add the others. user:mathewignash
• Keep, it's a legitimate subline, and the category is growing. JIP | Talk 18:14, 5 March 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 Transformers Primitives (both capped, since its a proper name). Syrthiss 13:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless cateogry of a group in one episode of a cartoon. The name will also get many confused. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, especially as name too vague. Merge with a renamed Category:Transformers → Category:Transformers (fiction) or Category:Transformers (fictional universe) category? (Category:Transformers also seems too vague.) David Kernow 18:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's not a bad category. They were a band of Transformers who formed and had a name, a leader, a mission. It links them in a way they wouldn't link if you didn't have the page. User:mathewignash.

In that case, suggest at least a rename to something like Category:Primitives (Transformers universe). David Kernow 11:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to Category:Primitives (Transformers) Category:Transformers Primitives. The name "Primitives" is a canonical Transformers term but Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia and not exclusive for Transformers, so it needs a more descriptive name. JIP | Talk 18:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to actually keep (I still can't fathom why as it was only in a single episode) the category, a better name would be Category:Transformers Primitives. Otherwise is pretty ugly and not in style. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. The category Pretenders (Transformers) should also be renamed Category:Transformers Pretenders. JIP | Talk 08:00, 6 March 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 sadly, no consensus. Syrthiss 13:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user has gone insane, creating numberous useless categories. Category:Sixchangers, Category:Fourchangers, Category:Tenchangers, and Category:Triplechangers should all be merged under the name of Category:Multichangers because they all deal with the same gimmick of more than two forms. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I could see them merged, but not deleted. user:mathewignash
• Delete all of them. How many forms a Transformer has is a mere technicality and does not have much impact on the character. Only the terms "Triple Changer" and "Six Changer" are canon, and even of those, "Triple Changer" was only officially used on six characters and "Six Changer" on two. JIP | Talk 18:14, 5 March 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. Syrthiss 13:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inconsistent category. Redundant. __earth ^(Talk) 03:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename It seems the intention was a category of Sports and Recreation in a place called Sabah. Seems that it would be legitimate if it were called Sports and recreation in Sabah. --JeffW 05:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sports, there's already a cat for it at Category:Sport in Malaysia. For recreation, there's already Category:National parks of Malaysia. From there, we could branch it further into national parks of Sabah or anything that has precedence. Merging the two while there are already other well-established related categories is imprudent. __earth ^(Talk) 12:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's ok to have two different ways to categorize the same thing. In the US there is a Category:National parks in California that is a subcategory of both Category:Parks in California and Category:United States National Parks by state. Sabah is a Malaysian state, so I don't see why a Category:Recreation in Sabah category couldn't be a subcategory of both a Sabah recreation category and a Malaysia recreation category. --JeffW 05:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per __earth Scranchuse 17:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary Mayumashu 12:17, 5 March 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. Syrthiss 13:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Empty, redundant and useless. __earth ^(Talk) 03:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This category was created this morning and emptied this morning. I bet if you contacted the creator he might speedy delete it. On the other hand, maybe he isn't finished with it yet. --JeffW 05:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, the user has a record for creating a lot of empty, redundant and useless cats. And he/she hardly cares for precedence. He might be a newbie but he has to learn not to create cat as he wishes to while there are already pre-existing ones. __earth ^(Talk) 12:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as proposed. Empty. Scranchuse 17:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as proposed. Alan Liefting 23:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as proposed and "media" is already plural, "medias" is nonsense. Carlossuarez46 03:02, 8 March 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. Syrthiss 13:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category should take its lead from Category:Occupations by nationality and Category:Sportspeople by nationality. Rename Golfcam 02:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename.--Mike Selinker 11:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as above. David Kernow 18:05, 4 March 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.