< April 15	April 17 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:College admissions to Category:University and college admissions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:College admissions to Category:University and college admissions

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, this is in line with both the parent Category:Universities and colleges and the main article which is now at University and college admissions. Timrollpickering 22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, consistency is always good, and consistency between a category and its lead article is especially good. Xtifr _tälk 02:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Jamie Mercer 14:29, 19 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Religion navigational boxes into Category:Religion and belief-related navigation templates. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category was only created less than 2 months ago. It is completely redundant with Category:Religion navigational boxes. It contains no articles, and only 3 subcats. The two other subcats (Christian and Jewish) could easily fit in the aforementioned Category:Religion navigational boxes. In fact, they should go in there, because that is where the Islam and Hindu subcats are located. Once we move those two subcats, it leaves this category empty, and just an extra unnecessary step in the tree.Andrew c 22:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge Category:Religion navigational boxes with Category:Religion and belief-related navigation templates, as "Religion and belief-related" follows the top-level description adopted by e.g. List of overviews. David Kernow (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction was "but there are no belief-related navigation" templates. (I also thought the phrasing "belief-related" was a little awkward.) But then I went and found Template:Belief systems which is currently uncategorized. -Andrew c 06:25, 17 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Natives of Martinique to Category:People from Martinique. Seems to be the simpler of the two options. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Natives of Martinique to Category:Martiniquais people

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per the convention of Category:People by nationality and the list of adjectival forms of place names. An alternative name might be Category:People from Martinique. jwillbur^talk 22:20, 16 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty cat superseded by Category:Music in Nottinghamshire — Jack · talk · 22:05, Monday, 16 April 2007

Delete per nom as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as empty cat. A W 16:01, 21 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:School killings in the United States. --Xdamr^talk 23:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:School shootings in the US perpetrated by students to Category:School killings in the United States perpetrated by students

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, US>>United States; shootings>>killings to match mother category. jengod 19:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 20:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:School killings in the United States - I do not think that the categories need to convey this much detail on the nature of the crimes. Category:School killings in the United States should be sufficient. Dr. Submillimeter 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this one is a sub-category of the other. I think the distinction is useful, but on a quick look round many of the main category belong in this sub-category. Johnbod 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:School killings in the United States per Johnbod; this is way overcat; are we going to have Category:School shootings in the US perpetrated by students of the same school and Category:School shootings in the US perpetrated by students of a different school, etc.? Carlossuarez46 22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment In view of current events, I suggest this nomination be withdrawn and perhaps considered at another time. Hmains 02:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Johnbod 02:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:School killings in the United States. It's unfortunate, but resolvable now.--Mike Selinker 23:15, 21 April 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising, Spam, Redirection To Outside Pages. Firstlensman 14:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep - this is a suspected bad-faith nomination. Firstlensman is angry that I have nominated a number of articles related to HeroClix have been nominated for deletion, and appears to be taking that anger out here (as noted on Talk:HeroClix). --Mhking 17:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic, Useful. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an appropriately-used maintenance category for articles maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations. It should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 18:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Okay, I found the project. It's legit. This is an inappropriate nomination. Doczilla 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I am a member of this project - it is legitimate. In nine months active with the project, I have never seen a contribution by this user. Scanning his/her contributions back to January 2005, this user has never made an edit to either the project page, the talk page, or to any of its articles. There is no logical reason for this nom; I also suspect that it was made in bad faith. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The WikiProject isn't a category. Royalbroil 03:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Bad-faith nomination for a legitimate WikiProject (the CfD tag somehow is on the WikiProject Television Stations project page, not the category. Project pages belong on MfD and not CfD, but I just don't see any reason to delete neither the project page nor the category. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:50, 19 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Greek Mayors into Category:Mayors of places in Greece. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek Mayors to Category:Mayors of places in Greece

Merge. A category already exists for Greek mayors. Damac 13:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, and per convention of Category:Mayors by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 16 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Hurricanes of unknown strength to Category:Unknown strength tropical cyclones (rather than to Category:Tropical cyclones of unknown strength) and for the rest, Category:Category 5 hurricanes to Category:Category 5 tropical cyclones, et cetera. The points raised by Tony, Vegaswikian, and PMAnderson seem like they can be dealt with by further categorisation as several editors explained below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Category 1 hurricanes to Category:Category 1 tropical cyclones

Propose renaming Category:Category 2 hurricanes to Category:Category 2 tropical cyclones

Propose renaming Category:Category 3 hurricanes to Category:Category 3 tropical cyclones

Propose renaming Category:Category 4 hurricanes to Category:Category 4 tropical cyclones

Propose renaming Category:Category 5 hurricanes to Category:Category 5 tropical cyclones

Propose renaming Category:Hurricanes of unknown strength to Category:Tropical cyclones of unknown strength

Nominator's Rationale: All the categories above are used for cyclones worldwide, not just hurricanes. Tropical cyclones is the appropriate global term. Not so sure about the most appropriate rename for the last category listed Category:Unknown strength tropical cyclones may be more suitable.--Nilf anion (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just so that I understand better, could you please, give an external reference to support the claim that "tropical cyclone" is used worldwide?--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Submillimeter (talk • contribs) 12:07, 16 April 2007

Umm, this should do. Note for example, the content of the Category 5 category - there are "hurricanes", "typhoons" and "cyclones"; Typhoon Saomai was emphatically not a hurricane.--Nilf anion (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Downmerge to Category:Hurricanes by strength. I think the storms from the hurricane regions should be kept separately. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is served by seperate categorisation: Category:Tropical cyclones by basin.--Nilf anion (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who filled out and popularized most of these categories, I quite agree with the rename. "Tropical cyclone" is the best/most general term for these storms, as shown by Category:Tropical cyclones by strength (and other classification categories) and the tropical cyclone article. If we wanted per-basin strength classification, that would be served by Category:Atlantic hurricanes by strength. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones for more about classifications. — jdorje (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I also remembered this link which I keep on my links page (outside of Wikipedia). This and the other website cited above both use the term "tropical cyclone" to describe these storms in general. The categories should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should these be sub categorized by basin like Atlantic hurricanes or Pacific hurricanes? While tropical cyclones is the correct technical name, that is not commonly used in many areas. Vegaswikian 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per jdorje etc Johnbod 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, changing to "tropical cyclone" would represent a worldwide view and would eliminate systemic bias. Making regional subcats (for instance, Category X Atlantic hurricanes) could be an editorial decision made after the fact. --Core desat 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Hurricanehink (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no; rename to Category:Atlantic hurricanes by strength and create a supercat for Category:tropical storms by strength. Why waste a perfectly good distinction? Someone will come along to cat Pacific typhoons. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:28, 18 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Category:Former cooperatives and Category:Former mutual insurance companies; rename others to Category:Defunct clubs and societies, etc. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per standard, should rename to "defunct foo" rather than "former foo". >Radiant< 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO, Former cooperatives and Former mutual insurance companies are not defunct! They have just been demutualized! -- Petri Krohn 12:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use defunct for categories where the organization is actually defunct As noted by Petri above, we have to be a little careful. Some of these categories are not actually about "defunct" organziations, but simply about organizations that changed their official mode of operations and are otherwise still active. I do support using the word defunct, though, for categories where all the articles are about organizations that are no longer active. Dugwiki 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good point, but it is not a defining characteristic ("corporations that used to be non-profit", anyone?) >Radiant< 09:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would agree that "former" for "used to be non-profit" isn't needed. But I think that "defunct" as in "no longer active" probably is needed and is defining (you can't get much more defining than "living/dead" or "in business/out of business"). Dugwiki 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all except for Category:Former cooperatives and Category:Former mutual insurance companies which should be deleted. Vegaswikian 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that exception. >Radiant< 08:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Vegaswikian proposal. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:33, 23 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 23:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, should rename to "defunct foo". Additionally the two seem to substantially cover the same area, so I could see a point in merging the two. >Radiant< 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both to "defunct", but oppose merger because NCIS etc were not police forces, and it's useful to separate agencies from territorial police forces. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but oppose merger per BrownHairedGirl. Jamie Mercer 14:30, 19 April 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Former art museums and galleries to Category:Defunct art museums and galleries, matching the parent Category:Art museums and galleries. No consensus for merging from or to Category:Defunct museums. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has substantial overlap with parent cat "defunct museums", so would suggest upmerge. Failing that, per standard, should rename to "defunct". >Radiant< 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Defunct art galleries and remove from Category:Defunct museums. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no overlap with parent seen in current list. Must have been edited. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Tony the T - Vassar does not really belong, as it has just been renamed, & is going strong. Johnbod 20:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rename with the more inclusive "defunct art museums and galleries" surviving. A Musing 21:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur, merging that way sounds better. >Radiant< 09:07, 18 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 23:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent cat, "Defunct financial companies by country". >Radiant< 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Defunct financial companies by country per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:53, 16 April 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:British railway lines (disused) to Category:Closed British railway lines, no consensus on the remainder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per standard, should rename to "defunct foo" rather than "former foo". >Radiant< 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Not sure here, because I am in favor of standardized namings of categories, but at the same time I feel that the term "defunct" is more common when we talk about companies, but not structures like stations or lines. I have almost never heard about "defunct railway lines", but the terms "former railway lines" or "closed railway lines" are pretty common. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think a building can be defunct; it's like all those paintings "residing" in museums (except when they go on vacation). Many disused railway lines are used for other things, and this is the normal & I think official term in the UK - on Ordnance Survey maps etc. Closed railway stations are similar. Johnbod 21:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As mentioned prior to this, the terms former and closed are much more common than defunct when referring to railway lines and stations. Simmo676 16:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can we at least rename Category:British railway lines (disused) to e.g. Category:Closed British railway lines to avoid the awkward parentheses? >Radiant< 08:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support that Johnbod 10:15, 19 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 23:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All three articles have been diffused into the relevant subcategories for film directors, film producers, screenwriters, and experimental filmmakers, in line with the treatment for such people from all other countries. Oliver Han 10:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as superfluous container category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 16 April 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus and not WP:CSD#G5 material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This tendentious category was created by User:Hashomer a sockpuppet of banned User:Homey on 6 Feb 2007. This category is redundant because Category:Political parties in Israel already exists with these parties in it so this category was not needed. But in any case, by definition, a political party in Israel is "Zionist" in the sense that in order for it and its members to eventually take their place/s in the Knesset, Israel's democratically elected parliament, they must accept and take an oath of allegiance to the Zionist State of Israel. User:Homey, through his sockpuppet User:Hashomer is displaying his consistent anti-Israel POV, trying to insinuate by tainting parties "Zionist" in this category, that somehow or other there can be another layer or category of parties. IZAK 10:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about Arab parties in Israel? Are they forced to swear allegience to Zionism before being allowed to represent their people? Oliver Han 10:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, every member elected to the Israeli Knesset must swear allegiance to the State of Israel, otherwise they are not permitted to take their seats. Arab Israelis are considered to be full Israeli citizens. That is why they have the right to sit in the Israeli Knesset. IZAK 10:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Elected officials in any country generally are required or at least expected to believe in that country's right to exist. This isn't about swearing allegiance to a political agenda like it would be in, say, Soviet Russia or Communist China. LordAmeth 13:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True also for traditionally Roman Catholic parties in Northern Ireland who pledge allegiance to Elizabeth II as queen in right of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Carlossuarez46 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think you'll find that is not required in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Johnbod 23:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Swearing allegiance to Israel, and swearing allegiance to the Zionist political project is not the same thing, as BrownHairedGirl implies below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 10:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the inaccurate nomination. There are and have been several non-Zionist political parties in Israel, both on the communist-left and on the religious right, parties which have for different reasons rejected the state of Israel. However, they are the exceptions to the Zionist norm, so it would make more sense to categorise the few non-Zionist parties than all the Zionist ones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pov pushing. Carlossuarez46 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and create a category for the non-Zionist parties. This is the most fundamental issue in Israel, and the category is also a useful subcategory of category:Zionism. Haddiscoe 12:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep It is a useful grouping of information, and sockpuppetry is not enough reason to delete. It is not POV pushing.--Sefringle 03:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category fills no function. --Soman 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It most certianly does. It serves the function of making a list of zionist political parties avaliable to wikipedia viewers.--Sefringle 04:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: It has already been clarified (and a political discussion surrounding this could be developed in length in another forum) that there adherence to zionism (at least lip-service to it) is a precondition to running for office in the State of Israel. Thus no meaningful separation between zionist and non-zionist parties can be made in a npov way. --Soman 07:43, 20 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 23:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining. There is also a category for Category:breast cancer activists (though it is overused for celebrities who have devoted maybe 0.1% of their time to the issue). Brandon97 09:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oliver Han 10:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-defining; breast cancer is a nasty thing, but very common. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 16:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. Haddiscoe 12:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restrict to articles where breast cancer is significantly mentioned As with similar disease related categories, it would be appropriate to use this category for articles which significantly discuss the person's breast cancer. While BrownHairedGirl is correct that breast cancer is somewhat common, it is not common for people with breast cancer to have Wikipedia articles that significantly discuss the person's illness. Also note that it is quite possible for people to be notable for multiple things. Ann Jillian for example was written about in published media as an actress, as a breast cancer patient and as a breast cancer activist. All three things are defining characteristics of her biography, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to use category tags for all three. Dugwiki 17:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - didn't we delete another category for pancreatic cancer survivors recently? Same reasoning applies here. I also have some concerns about categorizing people by what is ultimatley a transitory medical condition. Otto4711 01:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nondefining. Lesnail 15:39, 20 April 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete or rename. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In general, categorizing people of a certain career by religion is inappropriate, as religion is not necessarily influential in people's careers. Many of these career by religion categories are used to categorize people who fit the basic criteria set forth by the title. Hence, this category has been used to categorize anyone who is Jewish and a musician, not someone whose music is Jewish in nature. This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An alternative would be to rename these categories if the categories are intended for performers of music that is Jewish in nature (e.g. Category:Performers of Jewish music). However, many of the performers in this category do not perform religious music. Dr. Submillimeter 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Because Jewish is a slightly different situation I'm going keep here. "Jewish music" can be cultural rather than religion making it more like say Category:Roma musicians. We don't specify that they are "Performers of Roma music"--T. Anthony 09:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Performers of Jewish music. Which is what I think the category was intended to be. There is no need to put the Beastie Boys in Category:Jewish hip hop groups. Jon513 09:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to treating Category:Jewish hip hop groups as a separate thing. I might go so far as to say I'm not voting on that one, but I'm not certain.--T. Anthony 10:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. IZAK 10:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This proposal was rejected.--R613vlu 11:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - R613vlu: It's a process. Please take note that since the time of the proposal/s, a few recent significant votes resulted in deletion of so-called "Jewish" categories. Hopefully this trend will continue. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 10#Category:Jewish Economists and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 14#Category:Jewish figure skaters. Thank you, IZAK 06:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most Jewish musicians work in mainstream Western musical traditions. Oliver Han 10:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Jon513. JFW | T@lk 11:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename, and Recategorize. As per the comments on the other music by religion noms. As long as all of these are made "Performers of X music", there will be a standard format, and that's a good thing. As long as we don't just single out Jewish musicians as the one category that needs to be named differently for no reason... LordAmeth 13:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename--Urthogie 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like the African-American musician example in Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The example you note is actually for the category, not against it. Keatinga 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, read more carefully. It's not specifically for or against (which still means I was wrong to say it that way). Doczilla 01:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all "Jewish musicians" is a perfectly notable concept.--Runcorn 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Jewish American musicians was created because the parent category Category:Jewish Americans was becoming too large. In this case, it is largely an ethnic description, i.e., non-ethnic converts are not excluded. I don't know the intent of the creators of the other 3 categories, but they also seem to be ethnic in nature, not religious. However, since they are pan-national, they appear to be too vague to be useful. E.g., if Category:African musicians included Senegalese, American, and British artists, it would not be very useful as they don't have much in common musically and/or culturally. Keatinga 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since we have an article Jewish music, the intersection is valid, and we can have a category of Jewish musicians. Remember that not every intersection is invalid; lets see if the article exists or could exist and if so, the category is appropriate. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish music refers to traditional Jewish music. Just because an article like Mayan dance might exist, doesn't mean it is reasonable to categorize all people of Mayan descent into Category:Mayan musicians indifferent to what type of music they perform. Bulldog123 03:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Judaism is important in music; even composers such as Mendelssohn and Mahler, who converted, maintained strong links that affected their work.--Newport 22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly oppose deleting these.

1. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) Categorization of people (3.3 Heritage), which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish musicians" is clearly contemplated by Wiki policy. It says: Heritage

People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."

2. Nationality. Also, if the Jews are (as appears to be the case) a nation (and not just a religion), it would clearly not be appropriate to delete.

The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)."

The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)."

Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

3. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability."

To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category. In addition, these already exist for Black Jews and Jewish athletes and Jewish fencers and the like see Category:Jewish sportspeople.

And, importantly, there are a number of lists and articles relating to Jewish musicians. It is mentions such as these that demonstrate the importance of this classification ... which is what Wiki policy focuses on.

A number of people have failed to respect that the test for notability on Wiki is this, not their personal POV. --Epeefleche 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Religion has an effect on music, whether the music is expressly religious or secular. WP:OCAT is irrelevant here.Baka man 03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with IZAK. Bulldog123 03:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newport (and indeed this is a sub-cat of "Jewish Americans", which would be too large if all the sub-cats were to be deleted) Mad Jack 05:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many composers have been influenced by their Jewish heritage; many musicians' lives have been deeply influenced by it.--R613vlu 11:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This category makes an implied claim that Jewish heritage has a major impact on the music of all its members. Such claims need to be referenced, and are almost certainly untrue in many cases. Haddiscoe 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no implied claim. To be in this category you need to be Jewish and a musician, just as to be in Category:Belgian chemists you need to be Belgian and a chemist.--Brownlee 21:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete. If, as seems likely, the parallel cats of Category:Christian musicians, Category:Hindu musicians.... are deleted or renamed, this one should not remain in solitude. We should avoid the appearance of evil. Category:Performers of Jewish music and Category:Israeli musicians are no problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can we please focus on this debate - the others are not comparable because they are just religions whereas Judaism is an ethnicity as well.--Holdenhurst 11:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above--Sefringle 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly sensible and verifiable category, that means what it says - no more and no less.--Holdenhurst 11:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is irrelevant that Jewishness is an ethnicity as well, as musicians are not generally categorised by ethnicity. Jamie Mercer 14:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they are see Category:American musicians by ethnicity, Category:Arab musicians, Category:Basque musicians, Category:Kurdish musicians, Category:Roma musicians, and Category:Tamil musicians.--T. Anthony 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly rename, but strictly delimitated to Jewish folk music, etc., not a general listing of musicians who happen to be Jews. --Soman 16:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is it proposed that Category:French musicians be strictly delimited to French music, not a general listing of musicians who happen to be French?--Runcorn 21:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, no. French musicians could include all musicians from France. There is a difference here between nationality based criteria (i.e. which country someone comes from, regardless of ethnicity/religion) and ethnicity/religious identity-based criteria for categorization. --Soman 07:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment What difference?--Runcorn 09:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP is (and will be) full of categories by religion and ethnicity--Mrs random 05:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no good reason to break down Jews by profession. There are more basic Jewish cats that can be applied to a subject. Overcategorization. Crockspot 07:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many Jewish musicians have been strongly influenced by their Jewish heritage, and works as diverse as Mahler's 1st Symphony, Bernstein's Chichester Psalms and Bloch's Schelomo show these influences.--Holdenhurst 11:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a valid intersection. I don't believe that a rename here is appropriate given the comments above about the members of the category. However if kept it should be renamed to match the renames suggested below. So for this one I guess it would be Category:Performers of Jewish music however there would need to be a cleanup on the contents. Vegaswikian 05:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or failing that, Rename. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Not even one good reason for deleting.--Gilisa 08:55, 24 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In general, categorizing people of a certain career by religion is inappropriate, as religion is not necessarily influential in people's careers. Many of these career by religion categories are used to categorize people who fit the basic criteria set forth by the title. Hence, this category has been used to categorize anyone who is Christian and a rapper (such as Andre 3000 and Missy Elliott, not someone whose music is religious in nature. This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An alternative would be to rename these categories if the categories are intended for performers of music that is Jewish in nature (e.g. Category:Performers of Christian rap). However, many of the performers in this category do not perform religious music. Dr. Submillimeter 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oliver Han
Delete per nom as irrelevant intersection of rappers who happen to be christion, but encourage creation of Category:Performers of Christian rap, because Christian rap is a specific genre. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Christian rappers; delete Roman Catholic rappers Christian rappers is a valid intersection because Christian rap exists; I doubt that Roman Catholic rap can be an article, so the intersection is not valid. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also wouldn't mind if the Christian rap cat was renamed per Dr. Submillimeter's suggestion above: I still think that no one has shown that there is such a thing as Roman Catholic rap so I hardly think a category of those performers of the nonexistent genre need survive. Carlossuarez46 07:36, 17 April 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Christian musicians to Category:Performers of Christian music

Propose renaming Category:Canadian Christian musicians to Category:Canadian performers of Christian music

Propose renaming Category:Christian hip hop musicians to Category:Performers of Christian hip hop music

Propose renaming Category:Christian rock musicicans to Category:Performers of Christian rock music

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - Christian music is a well-known genre, and (hopefully) this category is being used for musicians who perform Christian music and not just any musician who is Christian. To avoid problems in the future, I suggest the rename above. Dr. Submillimeter 08:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator I guess. Although the rename sounds a bit clunky somehow.--T. Anthony 09:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Helps us make a clear distinction.--Urthogie 16:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename per nom for clarity, unless someone can propose a more elegant category name which still avoids the ambiguity rightly spotted by the nominator. I say "weak", thinking of musicians such as Johnny Cash and Bob Dylan, who both went through phases of producing overtly christian music, and Van Morrison who might not be accurately described as performing "Christian music" but has long had a Christian theme to a lot of his music. This is a grey area, and I'm not sure hat we have categorisation well-designed to cope with these grey areas: would Dylan, Cash and Morrison be included in Category:Performers of Christian music? --16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I see no reason why Dylan and Cash should not be categorized under the renamed category. Morrison is in a gray area; his inclusion could be discussed on his talk page. I just do not want to see te category used for Christian people who perform non-religious music. Dr. Submillimeter 18:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The rename creates uglier cats that are not superior to the current status quo in any manner.Baka man 01:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The rename is necessary to avoid people being inappropriately listed in these categories. For example, Gwen Stefani could be listed in this category because she is Christian and a musician, even though she does not perform Christian music. (This happened with Category:Roman Catholic musicians.) Dr. Submillimeter 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, or delete. Religion is irrelevant in many cases. Haddiscoe 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per nominator. But I still wonder if the initial aim of the creator who created these cats was to imply the Christian? A W 16:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bakasuprman. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 18:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Jamie Mercer 14:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Irk_(talk) 00:24, 21 April 2007 (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 section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to "performers of Sikh music". >Radiant< 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In general, categorizing people of a certain career by religion is inappropriate, as religion is not necessarily influential in people's careers. Many of these career by religion categories are used to categorize people who fit the basic criteria set forth by the title. Hence, this category has been used to categorize anyone who is Sikh and a musician, not someone whose music is religious in nature. This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An alternative would be to rename these categories if the categories are intended for performers of music that is Sikh in nature (e.g. Category:Performers of Sikh music). However, many of the performers in this category do not perform religious music. Dr. Submillimeter 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename is what I prefer. There is Sikh music so by extension there is Sikh musicians. Although the rename sounds a bit clunky somehow. (Comment: The Christian one was just a rename vote, I think it might be culturally insensitive to make non-Western religions a "delete or if you must then rename" vote)--T. Anthony 09:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Buddhist category was also a "rename" nomination, and some of the Christian categories are "deletion" nominations. My decision to nominate these as "delete" or "rename" was based on the categories' contents (whether they were for performers of religious music or people of a given religion who performed music). Dr. Submillimeter 10:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies then, ditto below. I haven't slept all night.--T. Anthony 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom, but support creation of Category:Performers of Sikh music. However, see my comments above on Christian musicians for some wider concerns about musicians whose music includes some religious themes, but might not strictly be called "religious music". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep intersection is valid by the existence of Sikh music as an article. Carlossuarez46 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also wouldn't mind if this were renamed per Dr. Submillimeter's suggestion above. Carlossuarez46 07:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the prevalence of Bhangra is promoted by visibly Sikh artists, like Sukhbir, Daler Mehndi, Malkit Singh, etc. etc. A rename merely makes the category less straightforward and uglier. Many singers of Sikh Music may be Muslim or Hindu, and many performers of secular music are influenced by Sikhism.Baka man 01:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Some people would interpret the category name as referring only to musicians who are Sikhs, thus excluding Muslims and Hindus. A rename would allow for less interpretation as to whether the category should include the Muslim and Hindu performers of Sikh music. Dr. Submillimeter 07:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, or delete. Religion is irrelevant in many cases. Haddiscoe 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Sub. Crockspot 07:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but if kept rename to Category:Performers of Sikh music. Vegaswikian 05:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to "Performers of Islamic music". >Radiant< 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In general, categorizing people of a certain career by religion is inappropriate, as religion is not necessarily a factor in the career. Many of these career by religion categories are used to categorize people who fit the basic criteria set forth by the title. Hence, this category has been used to categorize anyone who is Muslim and a musician, not someone whose music is Islamic in nature. This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An alternative would be to rename these categories if the categories are intended for performers of music that is Islamic in nature (e.g. Category:Performers of Islamic music). However, many of the performers in this category do not perform religious music. Dr. Submillimeter 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename is what I prefer. There is Muslim music so by extension there are Muslim musicians. Although the rename sounds a bit clunky somehow. (Comment: The Christian one was just a rename vote, I think it might be culturally insensitive to make non-Western religions a "delete or if you must then rename" vote)--T. Anthony 09:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Buddhist category was also a "rename" nomination, and some of the Christian categories are "deletion" nominations. My decision to nominate these as "delete" or "rename" was based on the categories' contents (whether they were for performers of religious music or people of a given religion who performed music). Dr. Submillimeter 10:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom, but support creation of Category:Performers of Islamic music. However, see my comments above on Christian musicians for some wider concerns about musicians whose music includes some religious themes, but might not strictly be called "religious music". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the intersection is valid because Muslim music exists. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the category isn't about Muslim music. Doczilla 01:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are Muslim musicians not by definition making Muslim music? We had the same thing with women screenwriters just a while back, the mere fact that they are women makes their writings women's screenplays even if no "feminist" element there or "Islamic" element here is obviously present to your average observor. I have an overall thought that we should remove all race and religion categories of people, but that view is apparently a small minority view and so I do have sympathy for a delete of this in keeping with that overall thought, but to delete this in a regime of keeping others seems POV-ish. Carlossuarez46 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also wouldn't mind if this were renamed per Dr. Submillimeter's suggestion above. Carlossuarez46 07:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, or delete. Religion is irrelevant in many cases. Haddiscoe 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and not rename, Muslim musician is different from the person who performs Islamic music. A W 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not rename. Muslim musicians does not imply anything other than the person is a musician, and is muslim.--Sefringle 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Sub. Crockspot 07:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not rename. --Sohailstyle 07:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but if kept rename to Category:Performers of Islamic music. Vegaswikian 05:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buddhist musicians to Category:Performers of Buddhist music

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - All the articles in this category are about people who are Buddhist monks or who appear to perform Buddhist music. I suggest renaming the category so that Buddhists who perform non-Buddhist music (e.g. Alanis Morissette) do not end up in this category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think you should propose the series of Religion musicians categories (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist...) at the same time instead of dividing into so many discussions. I think the matters are the same and we should go to discuss whether should we keep the type of "Religion + musicians" or not. A W 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator, although the rename sounds a bit clunky somehow.--T. Anthony 09:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename per nom. However, see my comments above on Christian musicians for some wider concerns about musicians whose music includes some religious themes, but might not strictly be called "religious music". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I created this category and pretty much all it has is Buddhist monks. However musicians who do some Buddhist music, like Yungchen Lhamo, yet are known beyond that contect can be in. The idea is that they performed Buddhist music, they don't have to exclusively perform Buddhist music and nothing else. Still, even with the original, I think it's best it not include say Belinda Carlisle or others whose Buddhism has not, or not yet, effected their music much.--T. Anthony 02:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean Category:Buddhist music is also overcategorization? Because we have Category:Gospel music and Category:Gospel musicians; Category:Latter Day Saint music and Category:Latter-day Saint musicians; or Category:First Nations music and Category:First Nations musicians. So if we can write an article about Buddhist music and have a category on it why would a Category:Performers of Buddhist music be inappropriate?--T. Anthony 07:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, or delete. Religion is irrelevant in many cases. Haddiscoe 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overcategorization. Crockspot 07:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if kept rename to Category:Performers of Buddhist music. Vegaswikian 05:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to "Performers of Hindu music". >Radiant< 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In general, categorizing people of a certain career by religion is inappropriate, as religion is not necessarily influential in people's careers. Many of these career by religion categories are used to categorize people who fit the basic criteria set forth by the title. Hence, this category has been used to categorize anyone who is Hindu and a musician, not someone whose music is Hindu in nature. This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An alternative would be to rename these categories if the categories are intended for performers of music that is Hindu in nature (e.g. Category:Performers of Hindu music). However, many of the performers in this category do not perform religious music. Dr. Submillimeter 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename is what I prefer. There is Hindu music so by extension there are Hindu musicians. Still the rename sounds a bit clunky somehow. (Comment: The Christian one was just a rename vote, I think it might be culturally insensitive to make non-Western religions a "delete or if you must then rename" vote)--T. Anthony 09:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Buddhist category was also a "rename" nomination, and some of the Christian categories are "deletion" nominations. My decision to nominate these as "delete" or "rename" was based on the categories' contents (whether they were for performers of religious music or people of a given religion who performed music). Dr. Submillimeter 10:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom, but support creation of Category:Performers of Hindu music. However, see my comments above on Christian musicians for some wider concerns about musicians whose music includes some religious themes, but might not strictly be called "religious music". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hindu music exists, so the intersection is valid. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also wouldn't mind if this were renamed per Dr. Submillimeter's suggestion above. Carlossuarez46 07:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bhajan, Kirtan, etc. are all valid Hindu music. Many major Hindu artists not involved in a religious performance per se, also conduct Hindu prayers before their concerts etc (Amit Kumar). A rename is quite useless as it just becomes a vague and usless cat. Yesudas performs Hindu music though he is Christian. The intersection between religion and music is undisputable so WP:OCAT is not applicable here.Baka man 01:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for reasons discussed in nom and clarified below Abecedare 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC) ~~Keep~~ appropriate category for performers of Hindu devotional music as listed by Bakaman, although I'd be open to suggestions for less-ambigious title. Incidentally, the term "Hindu Music" is also (rarely) applied to Indian classical music (see [1]), but I think those performers may be better classified under one of the cats. of Category:Indian classical musicians. Abecedare 02:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Abecedare, much of the Indian classical singers are Muslim. Tansen, Ali Akbar Khan, Amjad Ali Khan, etc are Muslim.Baka man 02:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True! Ever more the reason IMO to use one of the Category:Indian classical musicians for those performers and using the Category:Hindu musicians only for performers of devotional Hindu music (Mirabai, Anup Jalota, maybe even John McLaughlin (musician) !). Abecedare 03:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If kept, would you support renaming to Category:Performers of Hindu music, which would be less ambiguous (i.e. "Hindu" would be referring to the style of music and not the musicians)? Dr. Submillimeter 07:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I would support the prolixity for sake of clarity. Abecedare 07:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Performers of Hindu music and remove the musicians whose music is not influenced by Hinduism. I believe this should be consistent with all Religious musician categories. Gizza^Chat ^© 23:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For many Hindus, their religion and their music are inseparable—and not only for bhajan and kirtan performers. Some modern musicians see their music as an expression of their religion, even though it's not Hindu music per se. ॐ Priyanath talk 00:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not follow that just because a musician is a Hindu, his or her religion is a major part of his or her work. Jamie Mercer 14:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please anup Jalota, Haridas? Their music was explicitly Hindu. Your argument is impotent and not germane to the issue at hand.Baka man 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dr. Sub. Crockspot 07:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if kept rename to Category:Performers of Hindu music. Vegaswikian 05:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename to Category:Performers of Hindu music per WP:CSB. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 23:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is the recreation of deleted content; the category was deleted on 7 Feb 2007. We already decided that this category would be used to categorize people whose religion has nothing to do with their music (as was true with the last version of the category), despite the intentions of the category creators. Dr. Submillimeter 08:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An alternative would be to rename these categories if the categories are intended for performers of music that is Roman Catholic in nature (e.g. Category:Performers of Roman Catholic music). Dr. Submillimeter 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How would you define performers in this case? My suspicion is that anyone who performs Roman Catholic music will be tagged for this category. In fact I could see every Roman Catholic who is a musician being listed here since almost all perform at church. It would not be hard to add a line to their article to indicate this so the inclusion of the category would be valid. In many cases, there would at least be a local news paper cite to support this. Vegaswikian 18:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not that complicated. In the case of modern (post-1900) musicians I think it would be necessary that they had an album or CD of Catholic music. For earlier musicians I think it'd be necessary that they performed or composed masses or church music. Someone who merely sang in church choir as a kid would not apply. Well unless they were some kind of prodigy who composed long-lasting songs he/she sang at choir. (I don't think that'll happen very often)--T. Anthony 09:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support the suggested rename as that was my intent. I'm not intending to recreate a category that could allow in any musician who happens to be Catholic. I wanted this to be a subset of the Catholic music or Category:Christian musicians deal. A category for people who do Catholic music. Granted names like Aaron Neville could seem to go against that, but he did win an award for Catholic music. (Note I intended to be gone so apologies for being here at all)--T. Anthony 09:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but support creation of Category:Performers of Roman Catholic music. However, see my comments above on Christian musicians for some wider concerns about musicians whose music includes some religious themes, but might not strictly be called "religious music". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation. Doczilla 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we don't have Roman Catholic music as an article, but I'm not convinced one couldn't be written. We do have Catholic music (possibly misnamed for Roman Catholic) which points to a couple of contemporary Catholic (should be Roman Catholic) music articles, nothing about pre-Vatican II liturgical music but I would not foreswear that there is no valid article that could be written on the entire subject. Given that an article could probably be written (and several partial ones already have) this intersection is valid and the category falls within the exception spelled out in the policy. If you don't like that policy, let's change it rather than just flaunt it. Carlossuarez46 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (possibly misnamed for Roman Catholic) Uhh no. Although it causes confusion with other religions that use the word "Catholic", the term "Catholic" is in several respects better than "Roman Catholic." I know of Catholics who pretty much never use the term "Roman Catholic." It's become policy, sort of, to prefer "Roman Catholic" because of the Old Catholic Church and Anglo-Catholicism. Still "Roman Catholic" has the difficulty in that it doesn't encompass Eastern rites in communion with Rome. I've had to explain that "Roman Catholic" really doesn't mean only "Roman rite Catholic" on several lists so sometimes I just used "Catholic" on that disambig. We don't have any article on Old Catholic Church music or Anglo-Catholic music so I didn't need to worry about that.--T. Anthony 01:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The category isn't about Catholic music. Doczilla 01:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it is. The original was not, but I brought it back and placed it as a subcategory of Category:Catholic music. I did that so I could ask it be placed here so we could give an appropriate rename. A rename that would limit it to Catholic music performers. All names currently in it did, sometimes exclusively so, Catholic music. Yet in many cases they had nothing to denote they even were Catholic. Take the case of Zingarelli who worked at the Vatican for a time and whose article was taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Before today he was in no Catholic category at all even though someone interested in him could plausibly want to see musicians with a similar history.--T. Anthony 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A category name should clearly indicate its purpose. In this case, it does not. So if your intent was to not include every Roman Catholic musician, then the category is misnamed and needs a new name if kept. Vegaswikian 18:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course, that's why we're voting for a rename to do that. Although a bit clunky the rename will serve what I intended this to be.--T. Anthony 06:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also wouldn't mind if this were renamed per Dr. Submillimeter's suggestion above. Carlossuarez46 07:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Religion is irrelevant in too many cases for the category to be legitimate. Haddiscoe 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is deleted can I at least create a Category:Performers of Roman Catholic music and fill it with relevant names?--T. Anthony 12:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe you should wait to see what happens when all of these nominations close. This category may be renamed anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and maybe rename. This is a valid subgenre of music, and Wikipedia needs some way to categorize musicians who fall in that subgenre. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sacred music crossover between Roman Catholics and various mainline Protestants is constant. Is Richard Proulx in this category or the corresponding (putative) Anglican category? After all, his Community Mass is one of the most commonly used in the Episcopal Hymnal 1982. And in the USA it appears one would be far more likely to hear musci written for the Rennaisance Roman Catholic Church in an Episcopal church than in a Catholic church. Mangoe 17:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If so that's sad and we should work on that. However I think there are occasions and churches in the Catholic Church that still perform or record the older music. The Vatican still does and so do several monasteries. I would think that several of the Hymns to Mary and Marian devotions are specifically Catholic enough to not work in other context. I remember some that sang about the Immaculate Conception, which seems unlikely to be appropriate in an Episcopalian service. (Granted most of those would be from after 1854, although the Feast of the Immaculate Conception predates that)--T. Anthony 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP I sense strong bigotry in this. I think everyone who votes to delete this is anti-Catholic, otherwise they would see no problem with it. If this gets deleted, I'll nominate Category:Jewish musicians, and Category:Muslim musicians as well. I pray that one day you will stop your bigotry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Danson (talk • contribs) 21:37, 18 April 2007
- I think this being singled out last time may have been anti-Catholic. It may not have just as easily, but it was deleted before I revived it even though denomination-specific things like Category:Latter-day Saint musicians were okay. Anyway this time I think it was fair. I wanted to bring this back so I could get a rename vote to deal with problems from before. Also if you look above you'll see that this time Category:Jewish musicians et alia was nominated in much the same manner this was.--T. Anthony 22:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it seems some other wikipedians may be bigoted, because this is the only one that I think is in danger of deletion. Luckily, AfD is not a vote, so this could still be kept. Tom Danson 23:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Category:Latter-day Saint musicians is now nominated for deletion/renaming. Dr. Submillimeter 08:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not follow that just because a musician is a Catholic, his or her religion is a major part of his or her work. Jamie Mercer 14:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but it is a part of some musicians work. That's why I'd like it to be switched to Category:Performers of Roman Catholic music. All the names currently in it would apply. It's current, misleading, name was just because it was what was available.--T. Anthony 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or a Weak Rename to Category:Performers of Roman Catholic music as an alternative. The current category has to go, but while I don't like the suggested category, I do feel that it should be given a chance. However I don't know what 'Roman Catholic music' is. Vegaswikian 21:13, 21 April 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 23:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games articles requiring screenshots to Category:Video game articles requesting screenshots
Category:Video games articles requiring box art to Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art

Rename: Bringing in line with the parent categories. We are requesting images, not requiring them (how would we enforce requirement? ;) ). Also changing "box art" to "identifying art" as not all games come in boxes. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Note that I have changed "games" to "game" for the art category as I assume that was your intention. Garrett^Talk 09:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thanks for catching that. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the nomination. Makes sense to me! Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:49, 16 April 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Trivial and non-defining like membership in the freemasons or fraternities, which have and are being regularly deleted as categories; there may also be WP:BLP issues. Carlossuarez46 03:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep important category to organize the editing of gang member bio articles. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a Vice Lord is presumably not a weekend hobby, so "trivial and non-defining" hardly apply. There may very well be WP:BLP issues, but that is presumably the case at article level, & should be handled in the normal way. The same goes for the following noms. Johnbod 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with cleanup. Being in a notable criminal organization is a whole lot more defining than being in a frat, IMO. However, there are some entries that seem rather dubious. It absolutely should be watched for BLP issues, but that's true of a lot of categories. Nomination of this and related cats has a hint of trying to make a WP:POINT, though I doubt it was intentional. Xtifr _tälk 22:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 00:34, 22 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus (would seem odd to delete just this one and keep the others for want of consensus). Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Trivial and non-defining like membership in the freemasons or fraternities, which have and are being regularly deleted as categories; there may also be WP:BLP issues. Carlossuarez46 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oliver Han 10:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with cleanup. Being in a notable criminal organization is a whole lot more defining than being in a frat, IMO. However, there are some entries that seem rather dubious. It absolutely should be watched for BLP issues, but that's true of a lot of categories. Xtifr _tälk 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 00:31, 22 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Trivial and non-defining like membership in the freemasons or fraternities, which have and are being regularly deleted as categories; there may also be WP:BLP issues. Carlossuarez46 03:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable rapper feuds etc are built on these affiliations.Baka man 02:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with cleanup. Being in a notable criminal organization is a whole lot more defining than being in a frat, IMO. However, there are some entries that seem rather dubious. It absolutely should be watched for BLP issues, but that's true of a lot of categories. Xtifr _tälk 22:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per me above Johnbod 19:55, 22 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Trivial and non-defining like membership in the freemasons or fraternities, which have and are being regularly deleted as categorization; there may also be WP:BLP issues. Carlossuarez46 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable rapper feuds etc are built on these affiliations.Baka man 02:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with cleanup. Being in a notable criminal organization is a whole lot more defining than being in a frat, IMO. However, albums absolutely do not belong in this category, and there's some other entries that seem pretty dubious. It absolutely should be watched for BLP issues, but that's true of a lot of categories. Xtifr _tälk 22:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per me above Johnbod 19:56, 22 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Keep. This category plays notable role in sorting criminology-related articles and solving the backlog of its parent Category:Gang members. However, the information about all of these affiliations should be backed with reliable sources. A W 15:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Trivial and non-defining like membership in the freemasons or fraternities, which have and are being regularly deleted as categorization; there may also be WP:BLP issues. Carlossuarez46 03:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. The category itself, as well as its sub categories, was originally created to sort the backlog of Category:Gang members. I believe WP:BLP, as its very name implies, is in regards to biographies of living persons not subsequent categories. This argument has been made numerous times on past deletion debates regarding organized crime figures and other criminals. Membership, weither it be a crime family or a major street gang such as the Bloods or the Crips, can be verified through police records, newspaper articles, books, etc. I believe this applies to all areas of criminology, not just organized crime. MadMax 04:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, exactly how do we have access to confidential police records? The vast majority of gang members, some of them notable, may only be listed in confidential police files not available to the general public. Some may not even get past the contact card stage. Also, how many of the people in these categories are notable for their gang activity? In other words would their being in the gang be sufficient for them to merit an article? Yes, some members are notable for being a member, but the vast majority are not making this a non defining characteristic. If the information is needed for sorting, then listify. Vegaswikian 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both federal and police records, particularly mugshots, are available though online sources (as is quite apparent by existing articles on organized crime figures and other criminals). Again the nominator's concerns are related to individual articles not its subsequent categories. I'm not sure I understand how creating a list would clear up the previous backlog of articles on Category Gang members. MadMax 06:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very important to identify and to organize organized crime articles. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All per Mad Max, Wooyi & myself above. Johnbod 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can all of these affiliations be supported with reliable sources and are they verifiable?

Keep - Notable rapper feuds etc are built on these affiliations.Baka man 02:24, 17 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 16

Category:College admissions

Category:Religion and belief-related navigation templates

Category:Natives of Martinique

Category:Music from Nottingham, England

Category:School shootings in the US perpetrated by students

Category:WikiProject Television Stations

Category:Greek Mayors

Tropical cyclone strength categories

Category:Former clubs and societies

Category:Former supermarkets

Category:Historical cycling teams

Category:Former Norwegian athletics clubs

Category:Former clubs and societies, Category:Former cooperatives, Category:Former mutual insurance companies, Category:Former supermarkets, Category:Historical cycling teams and Category:Former Norwegian athletics clubs

Category:Former law enforcement agencies of the United Kingdom and Category:Former police forces of the United Kingdom

Category:Former art museums and galleries

Category:Defunct financial services companies by country

Category:British railway lines (disused), Category:Closed railway stations in Ireland, Category:Closed railways in Ireland, Category:Closed regional railway lines in Victoria, Category:Closed Victoria railway stations, Category:Closed regional railway stations in Victoria

Category:Cypriot filmmakers

Category:Zionist political parties in Israel

Category:Breast cancer patients

Category:Jewish musicians

Category:Christian rappers

Category:Christian musicians

Category:Sikh musicians

Category:Muslim musicians

Category:Buddhist musicians

Category:Hindu musicians

Category:Roman Catholic musicians

Video games articles requiring images

Category:Vice Lords

Category:Gangster Disciples

Category:Crips

Category:Bloods

Category:Gang members by affiliation