< February 17	February 19 >

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The result of the debate was withdrawn. the wub "?!" 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_4#Category:Nicole_Kidman_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_3#Category:Films_by_actor
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_3#Category:Jim_Carrey_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_19#Category:Jim_Carrey_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_8#Category:Vijay.27s_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_13#Category:Petula_Clark_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_13#Category:Films_by_actor
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_9#Category:John_Wayne_films

Delete, as yet another variation of Category:Films by actor. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. semper fictilis 03:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep with a repurpose to hold subcats for albums, songs, concerts by, books and films about, etc. If frickin' Britney Spears is notable enough for a category, Judy Garland sure as hell is. Otto4711 04:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with that, as it is, it should really have been named Judy Garland films. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Repurpose as suggested by Otto4711 if there are sufficient directly connected articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. Otherwise delete as the notability test, while essential for articles, does not entitle an article to its own category.

Xdamr^talk 15:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have created Category:Judy Garland songs and Category:Judy Garland biographies and located them along with Category:Judy Garland albums in the category, along with adding some additional articles and removing all the film articles. I also updated the category description to advise not to categorize films there. Otto4711 17:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn, no objection to keeping it as a repurposed category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Listing all of her albums and films eats up a huge chunk of her article, and having categories that just easily be redirected to in her article can help clean things up. --Ozgod 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While I obviously agree with your conclusion, the lists of films, songs and albums in her article should not be deleted in favor of the category. Most of those entries do not have articles and there is no way for a category to capture them. The films should not be categorized regardless because of the current consensus against Films by actor categories. Otto4711 20:28, 21 February 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 delete. the wub "?!" 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non defining, should be referenced, and categories don't do that. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, as per all "arrested for" or "charged with categories". This one doesn't even get as far as being non-defining; because it doesn't restrict itself to those convicted by due process, its use could be seen defamatory by including people wrongfully arrested. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Adding this category to any living persons page would, without iron clad sourcing within the page, be aagainst WP:BLP, and very, very difficult to police. Best to delete the category. semper fictilis 03:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Anyone can be arrested for anything; being arrested means nothing. Further, see my December comments regarding the difficulty of populating such a category in Category talk:Drunk driving, which was the Wikipedia drunk tank at the time. --CliffC 04:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per CliifC. ConDem^Talk 19:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. Awartha 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Arrested" is not a sufficient criteria. -Will Beback · † · 21:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to agree with the delete, it is more tabloid information than it is relevant biographical information. --Ozgod 21:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Strong potential for trouble down the road with WP:BLP. Already causing edit wars over differences of of being issued a ticket for driving with influence, or being arrested for driving under influence. —Ocatecir ^Talk 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Intractibly large, non encyclopedic, borderline trivial. -Drdisque 07:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial. Craig.Scott 12:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP concerns, this being trivial at best, and poor naming since arrested doesn't necessarily mean found guilty. Dragomiloff 01:12, 24 February 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 delete. the wub "?!" 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non defining, also, this kind of thing ought to be well referenced, and is therefore not good for a category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If listified, it should be subject to very thorough referencing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ""delete as non-defining, as per nom. semper fictilis 03:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the reasons stated above under "Category:People arrested for drunk driving". --CliffC 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as quadruple intersection. Otto4711 13:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - inappopriate way to categorise people. Metamagician3000 00:31, 24 February 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 withdrawn. the wub "?!" 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Synagogues in Vienna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The parent category, Category:Synagogues in Austria, has no entries outside Vienna, and that is unlikely to change. Maybe the articles in the current category should be merged into the Austria category, and the current subcategory deleted. YechielMan 21:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Your nomination is a typical example of someone overlooking the multiple navigation routes provided by the category system. Merging into Category:Synagogues in Austria would remove the articles from category:Places of worship in Vienna. This category is an excellent example of precise categorisation. Osomec 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Osomec. semper fictilis 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination per Osomec. YechielMan 07:08, 20 February 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 merge. the wub "?!" 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Female porn stars, per discussion of June 9th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Osomec 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reasonably large subcat and notable the way Vivid does their contracts. -Drdisque 07:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Though I buy category:Playboy Playmates, Vivid Girls seems more to be "actor by contract status" rather than an elite sorority.--Mike Selinker 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete. People are not categorized by employer or where they contract. Pavel Vozenilek 18:58, 24 February 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 merge. the wub "?!" 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:German television series, as duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. An obvious duplication. semper fictilis 03:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge per nom TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 05:15, 19 February 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. the wub "?!" 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Michigan early settlers, sentence case. Also note, this category currently contains 82 poorly-named and nearly empty subcats, it seems to me that a single statewide category would suffice. Opinions? -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I created the "Michigan Early Settlers" cat and agree on the rename. Regarding the county subcats (which I intended to fill today), I also agree. As time goes on - would you (or anyone else comments plz) have a problem with breaking down the state settlers into sub cats by county? If so, I'll categorize settlers by states only for now. Thanks.Nadsab 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Revise As a researcher, I am very supportive of the topic, but as a user find it too difficult to navigate broken down by county. Perhaps broader regions would be sufficent until there are more resources to add to the list (i.e. Eastern Upper Peninsula (UP), Central UP, Western UP, Northern Lower Peninsula (LP), Central LP, Southeastern LP, Southwestern LP)? thistlechick 16:37, 19 February 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 keep. the wub "?!" 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amateur radio people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is about various people who have been amateur radio operators but who are more notable for doing other things. It includes such people as Marlon Brando, Barry Goldwater, Juan Carlos I of Spain, and Steve Wozniak. Categorizing people by their hobbies like this seems inappropriate, as people are not notable for their hobbies. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Doppelganger E 17:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I can't see any reason for deletion. You often see discussed the topic of which famous people are radio amateurs, this could be useful reference point for this information. --jmb 18:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Amateur radio community takes a lot of pride in its members and this sort of detail is often searched for. --StuffOfInterest 19:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Perhaps Amateur Radio Personalities. Sabrebattletank 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Amateur radio attracts a lot of people from all walks of life, and that often influences their other work. It's certainly as relevant as any other grouping. -- Jay Maynard 01:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason to delete. It's useful to those who are interested. I think Dr. Submillimeter is just wrong. People can very well be notable for their hobbies. I believe this trend of reading into the guidelines policies and rules of Wikipedia things that aren't there and then trying to enforce them is getting ridiculous and somewhat reminiscent of a soup kitchen on Seinfeld. Anonym1ty 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to article page. The point can be made that there are many topics in wikipedia that seem silly or esoteric to the people who are just not interested in the topic... for example, here is a list that holds no interest for me List of asteroids named after people, but since someone finds it important, regardless of its lack of notability, it exists... and since someone cares about a list of celebrities who are amatuer radio enthusiasts it also shall exist. thistlechick 16:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Categories are handled differently from articles, which seems to be a point misunderstood by the person who made this last comment. This is not a request to completely delete the information, but instead a request to not use the information for categorization (e.g. for article organization). Listifying the category's contents in a list of notable amateur radio operators would be acceptable. However, using the category for navigation does not make sense. Categories should be used to organize people by their primary attributes. For example, is Marlon Brando really better known to the general public as an amateur radio operator? Dr. Submillimeter 16:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - You could also ask whether Marlon Brando is better known as someone who was born in 1924, died in 2004, diabetic, from Omaha etc? I have often been looking at a page about someone and happened to notice something in the categories that I did not expect so followed the link which then might lead to someone else in that category. --jmb 16:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - You seem to be saying here that if it isn't well known by the general public then it isn't worth knowing. Is this your argument? In that case, there is lots of details on lots of topics which should go away. Within the Amateur radio community there is interest in prominent people who practice the hobby. Pull up a HAM licensing manual and you will find references to them. --StuffOfInterest 17:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is the first mention of moving the information to an article page instead of simply deleting the category page... with that clarification of your intent for deletion, my vote is now changed to Convert to article page thistlechick 17:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but restrict to articles which notably mention amateur radio It's ok to categorize people by hobbies and sports they're involved with, but only if their article notably talks about the hobby in a verifiable way. Otherwise there would be no need for Category:People associated with sports and hobbies. However, that being said, it is important to make sure the articles in this category do in fact notably mention amateur radio. Articles which don't should be removed from the category. Dugwiki 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is categorisation by hobby. Greg Grahame 13:05, 22 February 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 delete. the wub "?!" 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is yet another category highlighting the minor educational achievements of people who are more notable for what they accomplished after completing their educations. It also indicates little else about how Fidel V. Ramos is related to Jimmy Carter, who are the sole people in the category. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 17:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 01:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. semper fictilis 03:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Either keep ALL Greek letter organization cats, or delete them all. Especially if it is an honorary then is additional evidence of the notability of the person so categorized. Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (and all the others too please). Craig.Scott 12:52, 21 February 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: Debate Closed. The category has been tagged as ((listify)) as the result of the previous CFD. -- Samuel Wantman 09:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify / Delete per discussion of January 25th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:58, 18 February 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. the wub "?!" 00:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as both non-defining and USA-centric. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia already contains more specific categories for this type of thing. Dr. Submillimeter 17:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and per Dr S, and because is ungrammatical; people may be born on a coast, but not in it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all of the above reasons (and probably a few more). semper fictilis 03:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this inappropriately capitalized and inaccurately worded creation of User:LedgerJoker,probable sockpuppet of banned User:EJBanks/User:Creepy Crawler, per above. Doczilla 04:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non defining attribute, improperly named - east coast of where? Japan? South Africa? US? At the very least the category name ought to be specific.

Xdamr^talk 15:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too broad. Awartha 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -Drdisque 07:34, 21 February 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 Delete as G1 recreated under a different name. Vegaswikian 19:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy delete as actors-by-series category. Relevant information already present at List of Harry Potter films cast members.

Xdamr^talk 15:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, per discussion of January 25th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - I wanted to nominate this myself. Dr. Submillimeter 17:12, 18 February 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 Renamed. Vegaswikian 00:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Pennsylvania State University presidents, expanding abbreviation. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Requested speedy rename under criteria #4. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:22, 18 February 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 merge. the wub "?!" 18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Pages needing expert attention from Military history experts, I think they qualify. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Merge - OP hit it on the head.
• Speedy merge -- an obvious one. semper fictilis 04:01, 19 February 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 merge to Category:World War II propaganda films. the wub "?!" 18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pro-Soviet propaganda films to Category:Pro-Soviet World War II propaganda films

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, all the films in this category were made during World War II, to encourage support for the Soviets against the Nazis. It is unlikely that many outright pro-Soviet films would have been made in the West before 1941 or after 1945. GCarty 14:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename, instead Merge to Category:World War II propaganda films and distribute amongst the appropriate national subcats. While this particular set of films may be cut-and-dried as to their political sympathies I am averse to the notion of opening up the door to POV-ridden categorization schemes using "pro-" or "anti-". Categorize by time period and nationality and cite reliable sources within the article to establish the political bent. Otto4711 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename, instead Merge I concur with Otto--Dudeman5685 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename, and merge per Otto. "pro" and "anti" is too crude a way of dividing categories; that sort of judgment belongs in a properly-referenced list or article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete category after merge to 'American World War II propaganda films' if not already there. They all seem to have been made in the US. If any were made in Russia, then their category would be 'Soviet World War II propaganda films' Hmains 03:15, 21 February 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 delete. the wub "?!" 18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:I've Got a Secret contestants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - does not approach being a defining or even notable characteristic for any of the people categorized. Amounts to a "guest star" role, for which we do not categorize. We have recently deleted categories for game show panelists (including the one for I've Got a Secret panelists) for similar reasons. Otto4711 14:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yet another non-defining characteristic. -- Samuel Wantman 01:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as 'guest star' categorisation, non-defining characteristic. --Xdamr^talk 14:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there is an article which notably mentions the show This category only makes sense if there is an article which notably mentions the person being a contestant on the show. If the appearance wasn't significant enough to include in the article in a verifiable way, then that appearance shouldn't be used for categorization purposes. Dugwiki 19:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 12:53, 21 February 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. the wub "?!" 18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Computer and video game censorship to Category:Video game censorship

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Computer and video games -> Video games. MrStalker 13:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, per decision of February 4th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per ProveIt. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:31, 20 February 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. the wub "?!" 18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Computer and video game genres to Category:Video game genres

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Computer and video games -> Video games. MrStalker 13:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, per discussion of February 4th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per ProveIt. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:31, 20 February 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. the wub "?!" 18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports computer games to Category:Sports video games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category doesn't just list computer games, and should be renamed. MrStalker 13:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, per discussion of February 4th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per ProveIt. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:31, 20 February 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. the wub "?!" 18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Racing computer games to Category:Racing video games

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category doesn't just list computer games and should be renamed. MrStalker 13:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, per discussion of February 4th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per ProveIt. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:32, 20 February 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedias by language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please see parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on invidiual Wikipedia language editions --Cat out 12:34, 18 February 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 delete. the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Characters created by Grant Morrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category covers the same ground as a previous deleted category, Fictional characters created by Grant Morrison (delete log). As a result of the previous CfD the category was listified at List of fictional characters created by Grant Morrison. The reasons for deleting it are that it is over-specialised which leads to category clutter, and categories that attribute sole creatorship of comic characters are undesirable as comics are a collaborative medium. See also deletion of similar categories for Stan Lee and Chris Claremont. H. Carver 11:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as recreated content. Otto4711 14:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete recreated content TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as a recreated cat. — J Greb 19:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. As the creator of the cat, I was unaware that previous discussions had gone on about it. Incidentally, is there any way to know that without having been around for the previous debates? If I had known it was previously deleted, I wouldn't have re-created it. Ford MF 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 21:47, 19 February 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 delete. the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Valedictorians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category highlights an achievement that has little to do with the notability of the individuals in the category. People are known for what they do after graduating from high school or college, not how they ranked when they graduated. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wimstead 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete existence of cat opens huge door for Vanity articles. Non-notable achievement -Drdisque 07:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 12:53, 21 February 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 delete. the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vanished (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - insufficient material to sustain the category. The two subcats are going to be deleted and the three articles are all interlinked. The series is cancelled so there will be no expansion. Otto4711 09:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 15:40, 19 February 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 merge. the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BAFTA winners to Category:BAFTA winners (people)

• Merge - the winners category is currently housing only people and is therefore redundant to winners (people). Category:BAFTA Awards is sufficient to serve as a parent cat without this intermediate level. Otto4711 08:52, 18 February 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 delete. the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academy Awards hosts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - overcategorization as performer by performance. This is one of any number of jobs that the ceremony hosts will work in the course of their careers. A complete list already exists at List of Academy Awards ceremonies. Otto4711 08:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Overcat. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Given that this is similar to a "guest performance" category, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wimstead 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pet nom, because this sort of category can easily proliferate, leading to massive category clutter. I have no objection to it being listified, as has already been done, tho it seems a little trivial to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not listify As so often when someone is suggesting "lisification" there is already a list that covers these names and more material as well, and is a better article than a mere list of this information would be. Osomec 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 15:40, 19 February 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 delete. the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spingarn Medal winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - overcategorization by award. This is one of many awards that the recipients are likely to have received in their lives. There is a complete annotated list in the Spingarn Medal article and having this as a category leads to clutter. Sammy Davis, Jr. has some two dozen categories. Martin Luther King, Jr. has three dozen. Otto4711 08:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 01:55, 19 February 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 delete. the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Units of viscosity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Empty category. All the articles under this category were merged recently. -Myth (Talk) 06:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This category was once populated with a very few short articles, one on each unit of viscosity. These short articles were merged into the general article on viscosity, where the units are placed together in a section. The result of this was that Category:Units of viscosity was emptied and, with the current proposal, the supercategory Category:Units of measure now stands to lose subcategory Category:Units of viscosity. This may be fine for people searching for background information on viscosity and likely to approach the Units information as an aspect of the general article, but not for readers searching the Units of measure substructure. If this proposal is passed, the Units of measure supercategory could become gap-toothed when its structure misses a relevant subcategory. Perhaps it might be worth looking again at Category:Units of measure to see what will be the next subcategory to have all its member articles merged and so head towards deletion. The entire structure could be unpicked - that is the logic of removing these subcategories. Having created the category and helped set up the individual articles, I am sad to see the loss of structure and definition that the recent mergers have caused and that the proposed deletion will inflict. My resolution would have been to reinstate the individual articles, even if short / stubby. However, having been so very closely involved, I will not vote here and will abide by the consensus. Ian Cairns 20:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The category is empty and no longer serves any purpose. This should be a speedy delete. Dr. Submillimeter 21:29, 19 February 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 delete. the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:America's Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, almost empty, will never have anything added to it since the two articles really encompass everything that needs to be said.65.99.214.90 03:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, overcat TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television)

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 delete. the wub "?!" 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CG Watchlists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userfy, This category does not attempt to organize pages in the article name space. WP:CAT is a bit unclear on this but this seems to be the norm for categories. Is there another way sharing a watch list? I want to see what the gernal concenses is for this type of category. Phatom87 01:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Personal/private categories are not useful to the community. I suggest the user copy the desired info to a user subpage and send a link to their associates instead. You might also make a developer request to add a share feature to the software. --Blainster 19:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should also be a policy on notifying the creator of such a category. The parent cat to this one was deleted some time ago and I was left to discover the matter myself. I was quite lucky to find this one while the CFD was still active.

As for an actual vote, I say keep. We have many categories for grouping users, would a few categories for a user's subpages really be such a big problem? I'll bet if I simply made it a category of the UserIds involved and called it "Fooian workgroup members" it wouldn't be deleted. CanadaGirl 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: CanadaGirl is the creator of this Category.

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 merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Chinese cuisine, duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge obvious mistake. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge then Categoryredirect from Category:Chinese food to chinese cuisine 70.55.87.154 02:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Yes, obvious mistake. Dr.frog 14:32, 23 February 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.