< April 6	April 8 >

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) 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People treated for alcoholism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Non-defining characteristic, trivial, WP:OCAT, and possible violation of WP:BLP. Carlossuarez46 00:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, definitely non-defining, even if it could avoid BLP issues. — coelacan — 00:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-defining. Piccadilly 09:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This type of biographical categorization leads to category clutter problems. Moreover, people are generally not notable for being alcoholics but instead for their other accomplishments. Dr. Submillimeter 11:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-defining with potential BLP problems. Doczilla 20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not trivial in life, but trivial as a Wikipedia category. ReeseM 01:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if properly restricted, delete otherwise First, in regards to WP:BLP, the guideline says that an allegation of an alchohol problem is acceptable if it "...is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Certain notable individuals are, unfortunately, notorious for their alcohol or drug dependency, and thus for those people there is often a great deal of reliable published sources detailing the problem. Thus it is not only proper but necessary to include that information in the person's biography under such circumstances (it is not proper to include simple rumors of alchoholism or very minor stories and the like.) Thus, provided this category is specifically used only in cases where the person's article presents verifiable information that their alchohol dependency and treatment was a notable part of their biography, then this category is a perfectly proper subdivision of Category:People by medical or psychological condition (since alchoholism is a medical condition). The fact that someone is probably also notable for other things doesn't necessarily make their alchoholism or drug dependency any less notable or defining a feature of their personal history. Dugwiki 16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Categories should not be about what mattered in the personal lives of the subjects, but rather the reasons why they have articles. Craig.Scott 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 20:30, 12 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:Reformed Theological Colleges and Seminaries to Category:Reformed church theological colleges and seminaries. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reformed Theological Colleges and Seminaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Reformed church theological colleges and seminaries, duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:59, 7 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 into Category:People from the Isle of Sheppey. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Isle-of-Sheppey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:People from Isle of Sheppey, to match Isle of Sheppey. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I created this one based on an article name somewhere. Agreed the titles should match properly. Regan123 17:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename - the island is known either as "The Isle of Sheppey" or simply as "Sheppey"- never as "Isle of Sheppey", asd made clear in the article. As such, the category should be Category:People from the Isle of Sheppey. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Category:People from the Isle of Sheppey, per Grutness. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Category:People from the Isle of Sheppey Piccadilly 11:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Category:People from the Isle of Sheppey Rgds, - Trident13

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) 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heroic acts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, interesting, but suffers from subjective inclusion criterion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OC#Subjective_inclusion_criterion. "Heroic" is a matter of opinion. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Despite the category's name, this is being used to categorize people as heroes. This suffers from severe POV problems and should be deeted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom and Dr. Submillimeter. Piccadilly 09:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --rimshots^talk 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective cat. Doczilla 20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Editors have innate inability to select acts from a neutral standpoint, therefore impossible to NPOV edits to this article. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 20:38, 8 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, per discussion of January 25th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Highlander cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, There is a Listify template on this page that says the category may be speedily deleted once a list is created. List of Highlander cast members exists, so please feel free to delete. Rosenknospe 15:52, 7 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 — anthony^[cfc] 00:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holocaust deniers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Like the former Category:Anti-Semitic people, this category inappropriately labels people -- it is potentially libelous and is speculative; thus, it should be deleted. --172.164.111.115 15:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:OC#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue, holding an opinion about a certain issue is not an appropriate criterion for categorisation. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak rename to something like Category:Holocaust denial researchers? Limit it to people who actually do scholarly research into Holocaust denial as opposed to random Neo-Nazis or whoever. Otto4711 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue is pretty clear. Do not categorize people based on their opinions. -- Cat ^chi? 18:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Split Rename one cat as per Otto above and another for Neo-Nazis and crackpots. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The articles in the category indicate the person denies the holocaust. Is each article also going to be re-written to hide this fact? Hmains 02:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is given in an article, it can be explained. It can also, most importantly, be sourced. This possibility is not there when using categories. That is why categories are not usually used for this kind of information. The articles can and will still have it. --rimshots^talk 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "Denial" is a black and white term, but the issue is far more complex than that. This category can be used to put people who say the holocaust didn't happen, but think it would have been a good thing if it had, in the same category as people who make serious scholarly criticisms of the establishment account of the holocaust (of course some people would deny that there is such a thing as a respectable criticism of the established account, but that is part of the problem that makes this an irresponsible category). ReeseM 01:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 11:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Wassermann 13:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with ReeseM's assessment above. This category makes no distinctions between people who believe no aspects of the Holocaust occurred versus those who believe certain aspects are true but that other aspects are exagerated based on what they might feel is a reasoned analysis of evidence. Since such a criteria therefore is somewhat broad, and the label itself can be used as a personal attack on the article's subject, the category should probably be deleted and the details of exactly what opinions the person expressed on the Holocaust should be explained solely in the person's article. Dugwiki 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but possibly rename to "Holocaust revisionists." A category needing a rename or improvement isn't the same as it needing to die. This is something more specific than "Anti-Semitic people" and I think has a better chance to be used accurately.--T. Anthony 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - there are also WP:BLP issues when it comes to tagging.. Baristarim 10:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ReeseM. Craig.Scott 00:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is based on well-sourced material. How is there more potential libel with this than with Category:Imams?--Avi 02:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Criteria for inclusion are explicitly clear, specifically to avoid the problems this nomination claims to be concerned about. Tomer^talk 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hmains, TShilo and Avi. JoshuaZ 03:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not a valid nomination IMHO. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 03:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's pretty hard to argue that describing someone like David Irving as a "Holocaust denier" is "libelous and speculative"; that's what the various court cases he was involved in described him as, and he was jailed for it. In addition, User:Dugwiki has made a distinction without a difference; read the Holocaust denial article for an explanation as to why. As for WP:OC#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue, it doesn't apply here; the Holocaust is not "a question or an issue", but a historical fact, and people aren't put into this category because they have an "opinion" about the Holocaust, they are put in it because they actively deny that historical fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Criteria are clean, and the classification is unambiguous. This isn't about opinion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per above, it certainly isn't a matter of "libel".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hmains, Tomer and others. 6SJ7 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see that the last 5 votes came in within 16 minutes of each other, are you folks hanging out together or something? :)--Tom 13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came in shortly after Pesach was over for me...it's possible Pesach ended for others around the same time and they saw my note to Jayjg on his talkpage. I certainly wasn't canvasing for !votes (this is about discussion, after all, not about voting...) Tomer^talk 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong element of voting in Wikipedia's decision making processes, whether one choses to acknowledge that reality or to deny it. Anyway, few of the keep voters have added much to the discussion. Honbicot 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Strong Delete. The main issue is not one of libel or defamation of character; it's about policy, and per WP:OC, these types of categories are not appropriate. --Hemlock Martinis 03:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As JayJG aptly points out above, the Holocaust is not a "question or issue", nor is "Holocaust denial" some subjective and whimsical categorization. Tomer^talk 03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Hemlock Martinis, especially in regarding to WP:BLP and a violation of WP:NPOV. Khorshid 04:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Avi. The "libeling" is done by the law court of quite a number of western countries and by the almost unanimous consensus of historians not living in Tehran. --tickle me 04:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but your derogatory comment against Iranian historians has no place here. No Iranian historian has ever denied the Holocaust and I challenge you to back up your nonsensical claim. Otherwise remove the allegation. Khorshid 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm forced to agree with this... I have never seen evidence that any respected Iranian historians have ever claimed Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial is regarded as historically accurate in Teheran any moreso than it is anywhere else. In fact, I've read some rather strongly-worded denigrations of his assertion by both Iranian historians and clerics. It doesn't need to be "removed", but striking it out wouldn't be such a bad idea... all flippancy aside, it does nothing to strengthen the argument. Tomer^talk 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This cat should be deleted. Re Avi's comment: Imam is not a charged term. "Holocaust denier" is a charged term, and is inappropriate for categorizing people, just like Category:Racists (which is deleted/protected), or any other sort of category which contains a slur.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Do the math. The Prince 04:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to Khorsid. Didn't Iran just hold a big Holocaust denial conference? You can't tell me there weren't some Iranian historian Holocaust deniers (*mouthful*) there. And by the way, Wikipedia does have policies against threatening (or "challenging") other users. The Prince 04:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Totally wrong. There were no Iranian historians there, just political figures associated with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I made no threats - a user made a derogatory allegation about Iranian historians and I am free to challenge that false notion. For someone to use the bigotry of a single tyrant to tarnish an entire country's academia is nonsense and biased to the extreme. Such comments, baseless as they are, have no place here. Khorshid 05:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And for that matter, find me evidence that any ordinary Iranians or Iranian academics were in attendance at that "conference". It was mostly foreigners from Western Europe and the United States including David Duke. Khorshid 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Guys...take it elsewhere. This is not the place for this discussion. Tomer^talk 05:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and tighten the criteria for inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the inclusion is based on facts (like public statements or published works), not merely "opinions". BTW, since when do anon IPs nominate articles/categories for deletion? ←Humus sapiens ^ну?

  Anyone can nominate anything for deletion at any time...the problem with this nomination is that it is completely misleading...not only does the category not "inappropriately [label] people", the criteria for inclusion preclude either "speculati[on]" or "potential[ charges of] libel[]". WP:AGF generally applies, although given the anon's edits from the same day, assumption of good faith, coupled with the entirely fallacious charges used for the nomination especially, is a pretty difficult task...and probably a self-defeating exercise in misplaced and unwarranted excessive caution. Tomer^talk 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Humus Sapiens and others. --Bear and Dragon 07:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep We should not use this category as a sloppy epithet against people we (well, someone) does not like. But any category can be misused - the possibility of misuse is not an argument against the category itself. The fact is there is a veritable industry of Holocaust deniers and within tat are a group of people who vocally self-identify as Holocaust deniers, so we should have a category. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 10:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closing administrator Please investigate whether the sudden flood of keep comments is a result of vote stacking. If it is, I suggest all but one of them should be disallowed. AshbyJnr 10:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, totally. Tomer^talk 00:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is entirely proper to draw attention to vote stacking, which is deprecated by the community. Honbicot 20:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per numerous persuasive and self-evident arguments. ----Leifern 11:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To be used selectively, but not to be deleted. JFW | T@lk 13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any legitimate historian with knowledge of the subject uses this term. This isn't controversial. IronDuke 14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. sheesh. we don't have access to the opinions people hold, but we can certainly assess their public statements. this is a very useful category, which undoubtedly is and will be utilized to search for articles. Gzuckier 15:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As long as we make sure the cat is not used as a slur or attack, it can certainly be objective and verifiable. --DLand^TALK 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DLand. gidonb 16:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DLand. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Holocaust denial is well-known and documented. It is not speculation, WP:OR or WP:OC to include Holocaust deniers in such a category. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, Well-sourced and well-documented, no problems. --Shamir1 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's based on what they say, what they think is unknowable to anyone (the same is true with religion and lots of other things). Carlossuarez46 23:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is a high probability that vote stacking has occurred here. Just look at how the keep votes started to pour in four days after the opening of the vote. Even if they all came here after seeing comments on each other's talk pages, one can have no confidence that the community as a whole would be in favour of keeping this. Honbicot 20:33, 12 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:Magnum, P.I. episodes - Season 7 to Category:Magnum, P.I. episodes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magnum, P.I. episodes - Season 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Magnum, P.I. episodes, convention of Category:Episodes by television series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:05, 7 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 both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:June 26th Births (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:January 14th Births (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, per discussion of November 2nd. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Detete per nom. Would speedy, but it looks like this date did not exist before now. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and prior. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not helpful category. Patstuart^talk·edits 02:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Even if this specific date's category did not previously exist, we have deleted so many of these birthday categories that the principles behind their deletion remain the same. Doczilla 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Piccadilly 11:49, 9 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:Terrier dogs into Category:Terriers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrier dogs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Terriers, or possibly the reverse ... duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Terriers - The two categories are clearly duplicates. I suggest merging to "terriers" so that the category name will correspond to the title of the main article on this topic (Terrier). Dr. Submillimeter 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Terriers. This is more common than "terrier dogs", and as Dr. Submillimeter notes, it matches the article. — coelacan — 00:59, 8 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 both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films featuring museums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

And Category:Films about museums.
I'll be blunt. Is this something anyone really cares about? Seems like a really inane thing to have a category over to me. I feel it needs to be deleted. SeizureDog 06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Films featuring museums - This category is being used to include every movie that has at least one scene in a museum, including the Indiana Jones movies. This type of categorization could quickly become inane if categories are created for every scene in every movie. I am undecided on Category:Films about museums. Dr. Submillimeter 08:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:DNWAUC -- Cat ^chi? 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who cares if a movie has a museum? its just random information Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. DBZROCKS 19:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-defining. Piccadilly 09:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-defining trivia. Doczilla 20:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Films featuring museums. Overbroad inclusion criterion; any film with a substantive scene at or near a museum qualifies and the films are likely to have little or nothing else in common.
• Noting that Category:Films about museums has not been properly tagged. Otto4711 22:56, 8 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 all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Subcategories of Category:Animal births by year to Category:XXXX animal births

• Category:Animal births in 1777 --> Category:1777 animal births
• Category:Animal births in 1830 --> Category:1830 animal births
• Category:Animal births in 1844 --> etc.
• Category:Animal births in 1861
• Category:Animal births in 1949
• Category:Animal births in 1984
• Category:Animal births in 1991
• Category:Animals born in 1989 --> Category:1989 animal births

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Rename all these subcategories to Category:XXXX animal births to match naming convention for births of people and horses. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nomination to make things consistent. Q0 15:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above Dugwiki 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify all subcategories. Surely there aren't enough individual animal articles for all these categories? 132.205.44.134 21:30, 10 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) 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish blues rock groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is only one group in the category, and it is unlikely that there will ever be many more. All includes groups should simply be placed in the category Blues-rock groups. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OC#Narrow_intersection and/or WP:OC#Trivial_intersection. As the nominator says, it's unlikely that this category will ever grow very large. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: a review of the widely accepted Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization standards might be in order here. This instance may be small, but it is part of a broader scheme used on thousands and thousands of articles. If merged, should be merged to both Category:Blues-rock groups and Category:Polish rock musical groups (which should itself be renamed to Category:Polish rock music groups for consistency with its sibling categories). Xtifr _tälk 03:35, 10 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.