< January 27 January 29 >

January 28

Category:Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, or Keep. Not sure about this one, leaning towards delete. What say you all? -- Prove It (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Metro Manila Newspapers and Magazines

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Category:Metro Manila newspapers and magazines, or Delete. -- Prove It (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:Fictional characters who have had abortions

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: listify, per creator's comments at the bottom, because the context is needed for this to be meaningful. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Fictional characters who have had abortions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kinda silly category. What's next? Category:Fictional mothers? Category:Fictional characters who got shot? Category:Fictional characters who love pizza? Actually, Category:Fictional mothers got deleted recently, twice.[2] The whole Category:Fictional characters by situation needs watching for similar entries, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • An article wouldn't be terrible in addition to the category. Otto4711 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The sheer number of fictional mothers or fictional characters who have been shot was as I understood it a large part of the reason that those catgeories were deleted. Despite what Radiant says below, character having abortions is not a particularly common plot point on soap opeas or in any other mode of fiction with which I'm particularly familiar and the number of notable characters who have had abortions is and for the foreseeable future remain small enough that a category isn't going to have the same sort of size-related problems that a mothers or got shot category would have. As for its being a defining characteristic, while I haven't researched it in any great depth I would argue that to at least some extent and for some characters it did become such a characteristic. Google "Maude abortion" and her having an abortion pops up in everything from a CNN retrospective on the abortion debate to a discussion on whether it was the abortion episodes that led to the show's jumping the shark. Otto4711 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In my viewing experience, what generally happens (at least on American TV) is that the character talks about having an abortion and then either miscarries or decides to have the baby. Otto4711 17:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there are always books, you know! Johnbod 17:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't understand what this has to do with anything. Are anti-abortionists really going to flock to the category? To what end? Confusing comment. Otto4711 17:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:Fenerbahçe sporters

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Fenerbahçe sporters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate of already deleted cat: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_17#Category:Famous_Fenerbah.C3.A7e_S.K._fans. Mais oui! 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fenerbahce sporters

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Fenerbahce sporters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate of already deleted cat: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_17#Category:Famous_Fenerbah.C3.A7e_S.K._fans. Mais oui! 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:TV shows that use Descriptive Video Service

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: listify. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose renaming Category:TV shows that use Descriptive Video Service to Category:Television shows that provide Descriptive Video Service
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.

Category:Guests on Koffee with Anu

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: delete. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, we've decided many times that Guest star categories are not a good idea. -- Prove It (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:UTC+3

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, better served by a list, and already covered by lists in UTC+3 and Moscow Time. -- Prove It (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Silver Buffalo awardees

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: delete. Most keep-comments are procedural or based on personal preference, rather than guidelines, or on the assumption that a list of awardees would be 'cruft'. It's not a problem if something was also discussed here three months ago. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Silver Buffalo awardees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Perhaps an important award within Scouting but a rather trivial thing to hang a category on. Otto4711 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I am not speaking to those awards. You can go and do your own research about whether those awards are important or not. Johntex\talk 23:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment This user is a member of the scouting wikiproject and has a scouting barnstar. ReeseM 11:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment This user is not a member of the Scouting WikiProject and has not received a Scouting barnstar. Johntex\talk 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Observation Dr. Submillimeter has established an impossible criteria to use. How does one measure "importance" or "selective"? Until this can be resolved, all you will ever get is an opinion battle. For me, this award is in fact more important than the Spingarn Medal (which I have never heard of) and arguably more selective that the Golden Glove Award (what percent of potential candidates received the award?). Of course, it would be silly to use such a criteria, so until there is a more concrete, objective measure, we have to rely on the "Wiki-way." Does this category make sense? Most of the arguments for keep are convincing to me, specifically: 1) high level - within its sphere, it is extremely high-level, 2) More useful as a category than as a list, 3) already decided recently (the appropriate response to something you don't agree with should *not* be to re-nominate. --NThurston 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The overcategorization guideline I quoted below is a good guideline for determining "importance" for an award. As for the keep arguments you cite, 1) "Employee of the Year" for the company where I work is extremely high-level in its sphere but there's no way in hell it should be noted anywhere on Wikipedia. 2) For navigation purposes, it's doubtful that the category would be the first route of navigation accessed instead of the article on the award where a list would reside. 3) Consensus can change. Otto4711 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment This category is more useful for navigation than Category:1924 births, which sits happily uncontested on the same George H. W. Bush article. The fact that these people received the Silver Buffalo award is a much more interesting thread for navigation than them being born in the same year. The 1924 births category contains far too many entries to expect any reader to navigate them. Johntex\talk 17:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I believe that the birth year categories are maintained in part for legal reasons, much like the category for living persons. Regardless, the "worthiness" of one category is irrelevant to the "worthiness of another. Otto4711 18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hmmmm... You may be right about the first part. I don't know, it is not obvious to me why there would be a reason to keep birth years. To your second point, others here have made comparison to other awards, notably Dr. Submillimeter above. Johntex\talk 05:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How is an award bestowed by the BSA not directly connected with the BSA? Otto4711 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is given by the BSA but recipients do not have to be closely associated with the BSA. They have to epitomize the ideals of Scouting, whether or not they are a member of a Scouting organization. Johntex\talk 23:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • An award bestowed by an organization is by definition associated with the organization that bestows it. Otto4711 23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree, the award is associated with Scouting. My point is that the BSA selection criteria does not include a need for the recipient to be directly tied to Scouting. Rather, they must expemplify the ideals of Scouting. Johntex\talk 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You may feel it is a bigger honor than the Eagle Scout, but I feel it is a less defining characteristic. Eagle Scouts have made a decision to work towards a goal and spent years of their life achieving that goal. I don't think that Hank Aaron, Bill Clinton, or George Bush ever set out to be awarded the Silver Beaver. ~ BigrTex 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's more of a statement than a suggestion, but regardless I would respond that consensus can change and just because a previous CfD had a different result that is no reason not to put critical consideration into the new CfD process. If the previous CfD reached a wrong result for a poor reason (speking generally here, not specifically about the last CfD of this cat) then simply repeating "keep" because of the mere existence of the previous CfD is rather uncompelling reasoning. Otto4711 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sure, consensus can change, but there is a limit to how frequently it should be tested. Johntex\talk 15:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: This seems to really be about the number of awards that appear to clutter the category section on articles. Perhaps a better solution would be to devise an awards infobox or a template that would put these in categories without appearing in the category section. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me I'm wrong here, but you seem to be implying that editors with a demonstrated interest in a subject are biased in these discussions. This is an obviously tautological statement.
Most of the arguments presented here to delete this category deal with it's "triviality" as compared to other awards. Thus, I do not see this CfD as regarding this category per se, but as a sweeping argument that could result in the deletion of series of categories. If so, then this should be dealt with at a different level. Simply stating that the Silver Buffalo is trivial is really not definitive reasoning.
If the real desire is to clear up category clutter, then perhaps there needs to be a better way to do this. I'm not an expert in WikiMedia, but I can only think that there should be a way to list and categorize this type of information without "cluttering".
Thank you for the clarification. FWIW, a quick search reveals the Time article when the award was created. [4] (I'll add that to the article later).
I see that Theodore Roosevelt Award recipients is currently up for deletion. Presidential Medal of Freedom_recipients was up for deletion some months ago. I have not looked for other samples.
Since there does seem to be some consensus for deleting these types of categories, perhaps it would be better to refer the entire issue to some group to come up with a working plan. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals would be interested in this?
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't know anything about any other similar categories being up for deleteion nor did I notice that this one had been up for deletion back several months ago. I can assure you that as far as I know there is no organized movement afoot to strip Wikipedia of its awards categroies, and if there is such a movement I am not a part of it. I ran across this category while looking at Bill Clinton's article. Looking at the cat and then the award article I formed the opinion that the category was not one that was appropriate for Wikipedia for the reasons I stated in my nomination. No conspiracy, just a random category spot and nom. Otto4711 16:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't go X-Files on me :-) No, I'm not claiming a conspiracy. It does seem that this has come up before, and if this category is retained, then it will probably come up again. I am more inclined to have the whole awards issue worked by an informed group rather than piecemeal additions and deletions.
Not to dilute this discussion, but I think you might simply be chipping away at one ice cube in the berg. The whole category system for medals and awards is... interesting. Just a quick look at categories, we have Category:Medalists with a whole bunch of stuff I never heard of (which does make it interesting). This in turn is a subcat of Category:Award winners. And it just keeps going. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, citations should be included. That is a good idea for handling long lists. If this is going to become a guideline or policy, it needs to be presented or codified in some manner. btw, The infobox I made for Arthur Rudolph is not a template yet.--Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with proposal - Seems like there is support for each award or honor having a list, so this type of template (perhaps fancied up a bit) would be a reasonable way of presenting the same information in a less cluttered fashion. Simple is good. The process for implementation would be: 1) Place the honors/awards template on every page in the category, including all current award categories in the box, 2) remove the category once the award is in the box, 3) ensure that the award page contains a complete list ("what links here" would be handy), 4) delete the category when it is empty. --NThurston 17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
agree with proposal, it's clean looking and a really dignified way not to lose the work put in at this category. Thanks Ed! Chris 03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:British Convert Muslim Terrorists

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: delete. Loaded phrasing is not good for categories, and it's near-empty anyway. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:British Convert Muslim Terrorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Biased title, in violation of the NPOV policy. Picaroon 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:Jinnah

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, without prejudice towards a renomination for deletion; it is unclear how many of the rename-commenters object to deletion. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jinnah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Muhammad Ali Jinnah
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.

Category:Iqbaliat

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: delete. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Iqbaliat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This seems to be intended as a category for the Iqbal bibliography along with some spillover of Iqbal scholars. We already have Category:Books by Muhammad Iqbal and Category:Iqbal scholars so between the two of those this category seems redundant. Otto4711 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:Fictional Northern Irish people

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: delete. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Fictional Northern Irish people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No one fits in this category, and in theory if a first fictional character with a wiki article did, we could add them to both the British and Irish categories, or re-create categories, but as it stands this is an empty category and therefore has no value.

I feel I should also note that this category survived a previous CfD due to being kept with other categories but this was under separate rationale to this nomination. ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:Fictional Irish

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: merge. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Fictional Irish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy merge into Category:Fictional Irish people - duplicate. ~ZytheTalk to me! 15:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:Fictional traitors

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 Category:Fictional characters who have committed treason. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Fictional traitors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To whom? In what sense? Do betrayals of trust count? Political treason or just lying to your mother? Indefensibly POV.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:Rivers of Styria

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: merge. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uperge into Category:Rivers of Austria, with a current population of only 52 rivers, it doesn't make sense to divide them amoung 9 states. -- Prove It (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:People from Rudrapatna

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: merge mainly because there's only one article in there. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into Category:People from Karnataka, Rudrapatna is just a small village in Karnataka. -- Prove It (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:Electricity companies of the United Kingdom

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 because it really is the sole exception in the parent cat. I'm sure that most countries have slightly different terms. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Category:Power companies of the United Kingdom convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:New Zealand electricity retailers

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Category:Power companies of New Zealand convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:Electric Utilities in India

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Category:Power companies of India convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:Electricity companies of Norway

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: merge. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into Category:Power companies of Norway, convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:The Facts of Life characters

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:The Facts of Life characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - I combined the five character articles into a single article per WP:FICT and the category is now unneeded. Otto4711 14:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People form Erzincan

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:People form Erzincan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.

Category:Deep Throat people

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Deep Throat people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Basically a relisting of people who are connected to this one film, all of which are already mentioned in the article for the film. It's simply pointless repitition. Dismas

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.

Towns in the Netherlands

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.
Category:Towns in Drenthe to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Drenthe
Category:Towns in Flevoland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Flevoland
Category:Towns in Friesland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Friesland
Category:Towns in Gelderland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Gelderland
Category:Towns in Groningen to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Groningen
Category:Towns in Dutch Limburg to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Dutch Limburg
Category:Towns in North Holland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in North Holland
Category:Towns in North Brabant to Category:Cities, towns and villages in North Brabant
Category:Towns in South Holland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in South Holland
Category:Towns in Overijssel to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Overijssel
Category:Towns in Utrecht to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Utrecht
Category:Towns in Zeeland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Zeeland
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.

Category:Major League Baseball Draft Picks

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: delete. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Major League Baseball Draft Picks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Only two teams listed as sub-categories, one of which only has one. Unnecessary information, best used if each team would have their own draft pick list. Neonblak 12:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:Boys & Girls Club alumni

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Boys & Girls Club alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.

Category:Debaters

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: delete. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Debaters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Debaters by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American debaters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:British debaters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian debaters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Indian debaters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Scottish debaters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Is there actually any such thing as a "professional debater"? Otto4711 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:1996 campaign finance scandal

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: delete. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:1996 campaign finance scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.

Category:Politicians killed during election campaign

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to Category:Politicians who died during an election campaign, for grammatical correctness, and the fact that not all the politicians were killed, some died of disease.--Jack Cox 05:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Virgin hilltowns

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, "Medieval hill towns in near pristine state and little known to tourists." Sounds like a travel magazine. -- Prove It (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Albums from Rap-A-Lot Records

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Category:Rap-A-Lot Records albums, convention of Category:Albums by record label. -- Prove It (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy rename. Cjmarsicano 04:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.

Category:Jewish Simpsons characters

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: merge. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Jewish Simpsons characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Unneeded category cruft. Also, there are only a few Jewish Simpsons characters. Scorpion 02:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.
More