< March 1	March 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. I will listify it at List of Carry On films cast members per SamuelWantman and Hawkestone (I accept that it is not exactly an actor by studio category; I am persuaded that the Carry On films have more in common than just "films produced by one studio"). If the list subsequently finds itself at AFD please restrict discussion to its merits, because I am not by any means closing this CFD as a consensus to listify. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this category was tagged listify but it should be deleted without listification. The category captures actors who appeared in one or more of dozens of films in the Carry On films series, making this more akin to a performers by studio cat than a performers by film cat. Otto4711 00:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete There is a list corresponding to the main players for this category in the article Carry On films Bluap 05:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the second best known British film series in the UK after James Bond, and some actors who are very well known in the UK are mainly identified as Carry On actors. LukeHoC 13:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is better to get rid of the lot than to allow any precedents for the retention of lesser categories to remain. CalJW 21:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to keep this as "Listify", but would not object to "Delete". It is harmless as a list, and if there is a desire to have this information, then why not? Anything but "keep". --Samuel Wantman 07:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list is "harmful" to the extent that it sets a precedent for retaining lists of actors by studio. We have recently deleted lists of Disney Channel actors and lists of Nickelodeon actors and perhaps a few more I'm forgetting. And if the information is in the individual film articles, there's no need for a separate list. Otto4711 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a series of films, not a studio. I doubt that you are familiar with the Carry On films, but they have been very famous in the UK for half a century, and most of the actors who appeared regularly in them are primarily known as Carry On actors. Wikipedia should provide a means of reminding oneself of the names, as this is a query which British people are likely to come to Wikipedia with great regularity, and requiring readers to trawl through the individial articles would not be appropriate. However, there is already a list of the regulars in the main article on the series. Hawkestone 21:20, 7 March 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. Coherent reasons were provided for its deletion, that seem to me to override the "ambiguity" rationale provided by nom (who states no objection to deleting this sort of category). Kane and curse are both mentioned in film series article, and could easily be linked (if they aren't already) from all three film articles. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Poltergeist films to Category:Poltergeist film series

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - to remove any ambiguity that the category is for the three films in the Poltergeist series, and not for other films involving poltergeists. Otto4711 23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category. Come on. The titles are Poltergeist, Poltergeist II, and Poltergeist III. Each article references the others. The connection between them is clear. How can a category possibly be needed? Doczilla 03:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are other articles in the category, including Reverend Henry Kane (which personally I think should be deleted but the AFD failed) and Poltergeist curse. It also seems to be somewhat standard practice to create this sort of category and park it in Category:Film series. Personally I wouldn't object to deleting the lot of them, as I've noticed in cleaning up the cast list categories that the eponymous film categories tend to gather names of people associated with the film (producers, screenwriters and directors mostly) turning them into de facto creator by product categories which I believe is improper. But I'm not sure this nom is the best place to start that process. Otto4711 04:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this category doesn't seem to do much other than to list the film articles together, something which would be much better accomplished within the article by means of a series box etc. Really I think that a similar approach as we have taken to eponymous bio categories should apply here—a significant number of directly related articles, something which this category doesn't have.

Xdamr^talk 14:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:01, 8 March 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, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 14:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. The articles on the three films in the series all contain cast lists which cover the territory. Otto4711 23:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:31, 3 March 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 Tim! 10:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a scientific category. Intangible2.0 23:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No valid reason offered for deletion. Social Darwinism is a sociopolitical theory and there is no reason not to categorize those who espouse it. Otto4711 23:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See that's the problem. The term has been used more as a pejorative, and there is far from any standard to whom or which this term can be applied. Note that Hofstadter's work has been rebuked. Intangible2.0 18:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether his work has been refuted is irrelevant. The Flat Earth Society has been pretty well refuted but it has an article. Otto4711 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this is about a category, not an article. Intangible2.0 10:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Otto is completly correct. Read the article on this subject. Hmains 18:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a pejorative category. For discussion of people who are reputed to be social darwinists, only discussion in their articles will do, where citations and counter-citations can be presented. A category is a binary classification scheme and has no room for grey areas. — coel acan — 20:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for articles which specify the person was a Social Darwinist While the term might carry some negative terms, if someone's article verifiably says they actively support Social Darwinism then I don't have a problem with that article being placed in this category. Dugwiki 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The category currently contains Ernst Haeckel, who was not himself a social darwinist, Church of Satan founder and High Priest Anton LaVey (something like social darwinism is a tenet of the church), Church of Satan Magister Boyd Rice, and a Satanist-fancruft article on non-notable pseudonym Ragnar Redbeard (which I have proposed for merging). I am now removing Ernst Haeckel since this is improper (and probably deliberately pejorative) categorization. We are left with a category that shows a small belief of a small religious organization... not exactly what the category purports to be. — coel acan — 22:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redbeard was probably influenced by Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own, thus an Egoist, not a "Social Darwinist." Intangible2.0 15:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, that would leave the category with nothing but two Church of Satan clergy. Sounds like an argument for deletion, since the category is just redundant to Category:Satanists. — coel acan — 22:25, 7 March 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, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 06:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. The main article, List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters and Minor characters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer cover the territory. Otto4711 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:55, 3 March 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, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 06:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. Roswell (TV series) contains a listing of regular and recurring cast members. Otto4711 22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:46, 3 March 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, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 06:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. Star Trek: Voyager has an extensive cast list including regular cast, recurring characters and notable guest appearances. Otto4711 22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:50, 3 March 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, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 14:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. Cast lists exist in the articles for the film and its sequels. Otto4711 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:34, 3 March 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, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 06:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. High School Musical has a cast list including all members of the category. Otto4711 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:52, 3 March 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, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 14:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per Listify tag. Cast lists exist in the articles for the various films. Otto4711 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:38, 3 March 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, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 14:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Listify tag. The Cheetah Girls (film) contains a comprehensive cast list. Otto4711 21:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:41, 3 March 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, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 14:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Listify tag. Celebrity Deathmatch contains comprehensive cast information. Otto4711 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:44, 3 March 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 all. I am simultaneously closing the related discussion below. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in this edit Otto4711 accidentally deleted his nomination here of Category:The NFL on ABC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I am boldly including this category in the deletion because the category was correctly tagged, the discussion here applies equally, and it was a mistake that it was not listed here throughout. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - These categories are for the most part being used to categorize the announcers, making them largely performer by network categories. Those articles on other topics, like the Super Bowl or playoffs, are already categorized under Category:Super Bowl and Category:National Football League playoffs. Otto4711 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rename parent for consistency with other categories such as those in Category:National Basketball Association media & Category:National Hockey League media. TonyTheTiger 22:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These categories are not comparable to those mentioned above, which do not split by channel. These categories are over the top. CalJW 01:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - As stated by the nominator, these categories are mostly used to list either individual announcers who have appeared on a given show, individual games that have been featured on a given show, or list articles that cover multiple shows on multiple newtorks. For announcers, this categorization is infeasible, as the announcers work for multiple shows over the courses of their careers. For individual games, this categorization is inappropriate as it reflects a US-centric point of view. For the list articles, this categorization is inappropriate, as the lists do not focus on an individual network's broadcast. Only a few articles on the broadcast itself are located within the indivual categories, but these are more easily linked through the main topic article for each category rather than through the category (which will be very difficult to maintain, given that other editors will want to add the announcers and such back into the categories). Therefore, I advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 19:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I doubt we ever need "show by network" categories, and this is no exception. — coel acan — 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Part of a broader scheme of U.S. centric classification of global sporting events by American media. The whole edifice should be dismantled. ReeseM 14:06, 4 March 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. Vegaswikian 06:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Category:Timelines of spaceflight, only contained 2 articles, both of which were duplicates of, and have been redirected to, 1957 in spaceflight. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, I'm not sure how the CFD process works, but this is an unneeded category. --WikiSlasher 07:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Libertarians (United States) to Category:Members of the Libertarian Party (United States). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Libertarians (United States) to Category:Members of the Libertarian Party (United States)

Nominator's Rationale: Rename: "libertarian" is an ambiguous term commonly applied to members of the party as well as holders of an ideology, and hence this cat could easily be confused with Category:American libertarians. Proposed naming format was recently used for another party whose name was deemed ambiguous. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Makes it explicit that this is for members of a party, rather than for those who have 'libertarian' opinions. --Xdamr^talk 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. Doczilla 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. ReeseM 14:06, 4 March 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 Category:Sports in College Station, Texas into Category:Texas A&M Aggies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports in College Station, Texas to Category:Texas A&M Aggies

Merge, are there any articles about sports in College Station, Texas that won't involve Texas A&M? These seem like duplicate categories. --Vossanova ^o< 19:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Any future articles on sports in College Station/Bryan that don't involve A&M can go under Category:Sports in Texas. Matter of fact, the Aggies category should be a direct subcat of "Sports in Texas". — Dale Arnett 08:22, 3 March 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 Category:Sports in Holland, Michigan into Category:Sports in Michigan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports in Holland, Michigan to Category:Sports in Michigan

Merge, Only two articles, small city for a Sports by city category. --Vossanova ^o< 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. — Dale Arnett 08:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --Xdamr^talk 15:05, 6 March 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having given a presentation at a minor conference is not sufficient reason to merit grouping these people with a category. Quatloo 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too insignificant of a criterion. SubSeven 10:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notacon is notable enough to have an article, but the category is silly. Many of these people have given presentations at many cons, and such categories would only add to cruft. — coel acan — 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-defining characteristic. --Xdamr^talk 15:05, 6 March 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 and make a subcategory of Hindu nationalism Tim! 10:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hindutva to Category:Hindu nationalism

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Hindutva is a neologism that was invented by VD Savarkar in the 20th century. It has many different meanings, and is also used as a pejorative term. Wikipedia has articles on neologisms (Category:Political neologisms) and pejorative terms(Category:Pejoratives). But Wikipedia has not categories that are named after neologisms. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms Therefore it should be moved to Hindu or Indian nationlism, which has the more accurate scope for the articles in the category. RF 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - per RF.Baka man 23:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename. These are not identical concepts. A better scheme is probably to have Category:Hindutva as a subcategory of Category:Hindu nationalism. — coel acan — 18:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are those not indentical concepts? Hindutva is a neologism for Hindu nationalism, and per policy (Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms) the neologism should be avoided. What is for you the meaning of Hindutva? It's not only a neologism, it has many different meanings. --RF 23:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategorize per Coelacan. Hindutva commonly refers to the modern Hindu nationalist movement of the Sangh Parivar. It is blatantly obvious that Hindu nationalism existed before Savarkar created the term. Thus you can make Hindutva a subcategory of Hindu nationalism. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategorize per Coelacan. Hindutva and Hindu nationalism are often used in different senses. If the term Hindutva were a "neologism", a google search won't return 396,000 results. Also, the term is not used in a pejorative sense by everybody; many Hindu organizations use the word proudly. utcursch | talk 06:13, 10 March 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another category that states whether people belonged to an honor society when they were in college. As stated in previous discussions, people are not notable for the honors that they received in college. They are instead notable for their achievements when they graduate. Moreover, as stated before, these categories for honors and awards lead to category clutter, whereby it becomed difficult to read or use the lists of categories indicating the many awards that these famous people have won. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there are more of these. CalJW 01:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 03:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually created this category after seeing the Phi Beta Kappa members category quite a while back, which appears to have already been deleted. However, the new (?) guideline seems to make sense, so I support this. Beginning 03:02, 4 March 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 listify and delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birth venue isn't usually a notable characteristic of a person. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 15:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is, but I get what you are saying. Delete. Recury 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia. Doczilla 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. Worth keeping the info in some form, but a category is hardly necessary or desirable. Grutness...wha? 10:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per Grutness. Vegaswikian 03:54, 7 March 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/Delete Tim! 10:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Pittsburgh Pirates players, do we really want to have draft pick categories?. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge.--Mike Selinker 17:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not everyone drafted by the Pirates played for the Pirates, but if they didn't it likely isn't a defining characteristic that they were drafted by them (or it is in the article). ~ Bigr Tex 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bigr. If no consensus, then consider this a vote to merge so the category can be deleted. Any articles that are mis categorized can be cleaned up at a later date. Vegaswikian 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has been discussed and deleted before. Major League Baseball Draft Picks. Neonblak 16:31, 7 March 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, While I am sure that has been more than one Swiss Quaker, Wikipedia currently only documents one of them and as such the category is meaningless Paul Carpenter 12:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't care for single entry cats either, however this is part of an established structure. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of Category:Quakers Note that it appears that Category:Quakers is currently completely subdivided by nationality. So assuming that subdivision scheme is accepted then this category is simply part of that structure and should be kept (even though it only has one article). Dugwiki 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki AshbyJnr 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - need to retain current cat structure. Metamagician3000 03:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to category structure. Beginning 03:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and return to one category, namely Quakers. Several nationalities will have only one or a few notable Quakers and do not need an entire category to themselves. Logophile 09:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The question of whether or not to merge all the national subcategories of Cat:Quakers is beyond the scope of this particular cfd, though. My suggestion would be that if you seriously want to pursue merging all the nationalities then you should create an umbrella cfd for them so we can consider the whole scheme at once. Dugwiki 20:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A standard navigational tool that is valuable for reasons that have been explained on this page numerous times. ReeseM 14:07, 4 March 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 Obviously a speedy --Cyde Weys 19:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Completely unnecessary, potentially offensive. Created solely for St Bede's Catholic College by creator of that page. Bencherlite 11:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as an intentional POV. Paul Carpenter 12:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as attack. I think that there is very little chance that 'chav' is being used, or indeed can be used, in a non-offensive, non-attacking way. --Xdamr^talk 12:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a slam. Also, I laughed. Quatloo 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as intentional POV. CalJW 01:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an 'attack cat'. Interesting approach. SubSeven 10:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G10, so tagged. — coel acan — 18:34, 3 March 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another by network personalities category. Vegaswikian 09:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - People work for many networks over the course of their careers. Categorization like this is therefore not meaningful, but it will to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 10:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per reasoning in previous "actor by network" afds. Dugwiki 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as improper performer by network category. Otto4711 00:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - non defining. --Xdamr^talk 15:34, 6 March 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another by network personalities category. Vegaswikian 08:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yarg! Again! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - People work for many networks over the course of their careers. Categorization like this is therefore not meaningful, but it will to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 10:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous "actor by network" afds Dugwiki 18:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. AshbyJnr 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Dr. Submillimeter. Not a defining characteristic. --Xdamr^talk 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, without this people are just going to get continually shovelled back into the parent Category:Sirius Satellite Radio. As far as I'm concerned, this should be deleted only if editors are willing to seriously take on the job of monitoring that parent category; otherwise it's necessary to keep them separated somehow from more general Sirius-related articles. Bearcat 21:50, 6 March 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this category has a listify tag but the category should be deleted and not listified. The category is for people who appeared in a Disney Channel movie, making the category performer by network. We have deleted many such categories already. If cast lists are desirable then they can be put in the articles for particular movies. The category should be deleted. Otto4711 06:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete damnit, who keeps creating these cats? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 'performer by network' categories. --Xdamr^talk 15:26, 6 March 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 "Stations of...Line" categories into "...Line" categories, for example Category:Stations of Tokyo Metro Ginza Line into Category:Tokyo Metro Ginza Line. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding the following lines:

~~Delete or merge down~~ Upmerge Each of these categories contains only the main subway line article and subcategory for stations on the line. These categories are needless and add an extra step in navigation to get to the line article or the stations subcategory. Ytny (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what the convention is for a category for railway stations by line - do you go with Category:___ Line or Category:Stations of ____ Line? Ytny (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since Wikipedia is not a directory − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We all know (or should know) that Wikipedia is not a directory, but, simply quoting policy without explaining how you think it applies to this situation is pointless. The only part of that which is remotely relevant is #3; but, since #3 is targeted at the contents of articles and not the existence or articles (nor targeted at the existence of categories especially), it is not evident how you think it applies to this renaming. Neier 12:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - The Stations of ___ Line categories were first started a couple of months ago, and although there was a mention of them on the project talk page, there were no responses so they were created via the silence of the majority. At that time, and still now, I'm not convinced that it is a required category. There are things which would go in the ____ Line category, which would not go into the Stations of ____ Line category; like, articles about accidents (like Yokohama rail crash); notable tunnels or bridges; etc. So, categories for the line are needed; but, in general, the amount of stuff in that category will not be large enough to require the sub-category just for the stations. Neier 12:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Upmerge — per Neier. "Category:Stations of ___ Line" should be upmerged into "Category:___ Line" in each case. The actual merging can be done by us, members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains in Japan.--Endroit 13:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Line categories. Upmerge Station categories. Categorisation of stations by line seems to be a very sensible scheme. Bluap 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the stations -- Samuel Wantman 08:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note' I've added Tokyo-area JR lines here for the same reason: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 6#Tokyo-area station categories Ytny (talk) 04:37, 6 March 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 Category:California Hardcore musical group into Category:California musical groups. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:California musical groups, see also a related nomination. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger − makes sense − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, subdividing the subcategories of Category:American musical groups by state is simply excessive and unnecessary. May also want to merge with an appropriate subcat of Category:American musical groups by genre, but I'm not too sure which one... Note that "Hardcore" is a term which has been applied to at least three separate sub-genres (hardcore metal, hardcore punk and hardcore rap), and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more sub-genres that are referred to informally as "Hardcore" by fans of the parent genre, so I think "Hardcore"—by itself—is a highly inappropriate designation. Xtifr _tälk 22:29, 3 March 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non defining. We don't even do Guest stars by show, Shows by guest star is even worse. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a helpful way of grouping articles, and several shows would find themselves bombarded with similar categories. I shudder to imagine what the pages on The Ed Sullivan Show, The Tonight Show, Saturday Night Live, and all other shows that regularly feature guests would look like. GassyGuy 04:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief. Delete this useless, impractical category. Like GassyGuy says, just imagine the loooooooooooooooong box full of categories that would appear at the bottom of the The Tonight Show article if we categorized for each guest. Doczilla 06:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very trivial, useless information. Ohmigawd, the Carpenters were on The Ed Sullivan Show!!! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorizing shows by guest appearance will become inane, as some shows feature many guests (such as the Tonight Show or the Ed Sullivan Show). The categories for all of the guest appearances would be longer than the articles themselves. (Is someone a really big Carpenters fan? This is the third Carpenters category I have seen in the past month. I would not be surprised to see Category:Cereals eaten by The Carpenters.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly trivial, non-defining categorisation. --Xdamr^talk 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Otto4711 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. We might want to use this category as an example of a really bad case of categorization. -- Samuel Wantman 08:05, 5 March 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, as already decided. Prove It ^(talk) 06:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Category is tagged Listify and the article Veronica Mars includes an extensive cast list to allow for speedy deletion of the category.. Otto4711 04:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it is a time honoured tradition for these types of category. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, If we've already discussed it, just add it to the empty then delete list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:52, 4 March 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States tourism by state to Category:Tourism in the United States by state

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, in line with the usual and preferable style for such category names. Choalbaton 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming since it is currently ambiguous. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with parent. mattbr³⁰ 10:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. SubSeven 10:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 15:26, 6 March 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 all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Faculties of medicine in Hong Kong to Category:Schools of medicine in Hong Kong

Rename Category:Medical colleges in India to Category:Schools of medicine in India

Rename Category:Pakistan Medical Colleges to Category:Schools of medicine in Pakistan

For conformity with the other school of medicine categories. This is a follow up to the recent speedy renaming of all the categories that were spelled with a capital "M". ReeseM 01:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as convention sees fit. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 19:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger 22:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Hong Kong category. All medical schools in Hong Kong are named Faculty of Medicine. - Privacy 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all "Schools of medicine" is perfectly clear for Hong Hong readers. Hawkestone 21:26, 7 March 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 (no discussion, no objections raised). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Awards and decorations of the United States military to Category:Military awards and decorations of the United States

Rename Category:Civilian decorations of the United States to Category:Civil awards and decorations of the United States

Rename to conform to WP:ODM categorisation guidelines.

Xdamr^talk 01:11, 2 March 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - eponymous category is being used largely as a catch-all for articles of people who I guess have some relation to Jim Rome. Former co-workers? No idea. Along with articles of such tenuous connection as Lust for Life (album) which he uses as bumper music on one of his shows and Merkur XR4Ti, a car that Rome owns and talks about on the radio. There are articles for various of his shows but those should be interlinked with his article and each other, not categorized. The category should be deleted. Otto4711 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eponymous categories for individual people are generally a bad idea. Almost always the links that are actually directly connected to the person appear in their main article, making the category redundant for navigation. In this particular case, it seems like some of these articles aren't even directly related to Jim Rome, but are rather people who might have worked with him at some point or another, or do impressions of him (Frank Caliendo) or who wrote bumper music, etc. For example, Jay Mohr's article doesn't mention Jim Rome at all, yet is included in this category because he is listed as one of Jim's previous guest host replacements in the Jim Rome article. Basically the category appears to be unnecessary and includes articles that probably shouldn't be there their articles make no mention of the man at all. Dugwiki 18:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categories are for "X is a type, subset, or product of Y", not "X can somehow be connected with Y". --Vossanova ^o< 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For Top and High priority articles I believe eponymous categories may be O.K. I like Jim Rome, but his bio is probably a mid priority article. TonyTheTiger 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vossanova. All but a few of these in the category are just people who occasionally appear on the show. SubSeven 10:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eponymous categories are merited where there are a substantial number of directly relevant articles/sub-categories—they are not merited solely on account of the notability of the person concerned. Taking into account the fact that this category is being misused as a 'catch all' for all things connected, no matter how tangentially, with Rome, there is too little content to justify it.

Xdamr^talk 15:25, 6 March 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 (no discussion, therefore no objections raised). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Awards and decorations of the British armed forces to Category:Military awards and decorations of the United Kingdom

Rename Category:Civil decorations of the United Kingdom to Category:Civil awards and decorations of the United Kingdom

Rename to conform to WP:ODM categorisation guidelines.

Xdamr^talk 01:03, 2 March 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Civil decorations of South Africa to Category:Civil awards and decorations of South Africa

Rename to conform with WP:ODM categorisation guidelines.

Xdamr^talk 00:56, 2 March 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. I am simultaneously the closing related discussion of multiple categories above. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is kind of a "test the waters" nomination. There are extensive categories for a variety of sports by network and they strike me as overcategorization. The bulk of the articles in this category are for announcers and other personalities associated with The NFL on FOX, meaning that the category is serving as an ersatz performer by series or performer by network category. We have deleted a number of such network-based categories recently, including MSNBC personalities, CBC personalities, ABC personalities, and so on, and of course the performer by series categories are all undergoing listification and deletion. There already appear to be lists of the broadcasters, and they along with the broadcasters themselves should be housed in Category:National Football League announcers. Other articles are for things like various Super Bowl games which should be in Category:Super Bowl and lists of unusual plays like List of Hail Marys in American football, not all of which took place during games shown on FOX. This category and ones similar to it lead to massive clutter on the articles for sports announcers who work in multiple sports. The category should be deleted. Otto4711 00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These categories only exist for the U.S. and they undermine Wikipedia's credibility as a country-neutral global resource. Creating such categories for all countries is of course out of the question. ReeseM 01:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some of these categories might be useful if limited strictly to articles on the networks' broadcasts themselves (e.g. if the announcers, specific games, and articles that cover multiple networks were removed from the categories). However, few articles would be left in the categories. In the case of this category, that would only leave NFL on FOX, List of NFL on FOX game announcers, and FOX NFL Sunday, which could all be interlinked in the text or "See also" sections just as easily as through categories. Moreover, if these categories were pruned, I do suspect that the categories would be used to list people again later (which is inappropriate, as it is a form of categorizing performer by performance). Therefore, I am voting to delete. Dr. Submillimeter 10:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've always hated these. Recury 18:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sporting events are not defined by what channel they are broadcast on in America. AshbyJnr 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorisation. Metamagician3000 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The majority of the people in these categories are broadcasters, and categorising broadcasters by program is excessive. LukeHoC 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Show by network" is just crufty categorization. — coel acan — 20:32, 3 March 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.

March 2

Category:Carry On film cast members

Category:Poltergeist films

Category:Poltergeist cast members

Category:Social Darwinists

Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer cast members

Category:Roswell cast members

Category:Star Trek: Voyager cast members

Category:Zenon cast members

Category:High School Musical cast members

Category:Halloweentown cast members

Category:The Cheetah Girls cast members

Category:Celebrity Deathmatch cast members

NFL on TV

Category:Space Launches by Month/Year

Category:Libertarians (United States)

Category:Sports in College Station, Texas

Category:Sports in Holland, Michigan

Category:Notacon presenters

Category:Hindutva

Category:Phi Theta Kappa members

Category:People born at sea

Category:Pittsburgh Pirates draft picks

Category:Swiss Quakers

Category:Chav school

Category:UPN television network personalities

Category:Sirius Satellite Radio personalities

Category:DCOM cast members

Tokyosubway

Category:California Hardcore musical group

Category:The Carpenters' Guest Appearances

Category:Veronica Mars cast members

Category:United States tourism by state

Schools of medicine

Orders, decorations, and medals of the United States - Housekeeping

Category:Jim Rome

Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom - Housekeeping

Category:Civil decorations of South Africa

Category:The NFL on FOX