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 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 debate was delete, empty. Bencherlite^Talk 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Folk rock music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is redundant of Category:Folk rock, and is also empty. CherryFlavoredAntacid (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Sting_au Talk 11:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Merge Category:James Bond love interests to Category:James Bond characters - jc37 07:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:James Bond love interests to Category:James Bond characters

Nominator's rationale: Merge - to the best of my knowledge James Bond has only had one love interest, Tracy Bond. The rest are characters he's had sex with, which seems a poor basis for categorization. Akin to an "allies" category, which we don't do. Otto4711 (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vesper Lynd is definitely a love interest as well. But merge nonetheless.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or perhaps Rename to "Bond Girls". But "Love interest" is hardly an appropriate title for someone he merely had sex with. CherryFlavoredAntacid (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rebuild as Category:Bond girls 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That category was first renamed to Actresses who played Bond girls and then deleted as performer by performance overcategorization. Recreating it will lead to ambiguity since the term Bond girl refers to both the characters but probably more to the women who play them. Otto4711 (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that Bond girl is a defining characteristic of an actress' career, so it should be exempt from the performer by performance rule. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there are a number of Bond girls, including but not limited to Diana Rigg, Halle Berry and Denise Richards among many others who would dispute that contention. Otto4711 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Halle Berry and Denise Richards would agree with that statement, since they've stated similar things in interviews (as would Teri Hatcher). Diana Rigg? Perhaps. 132.205.99.122 20:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuild as Category:Bond girls. Sting_au Talk 11:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Having two separate categories I believe is overcategorization; see WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --Son 04:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neue Slowenische Kunst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation. Contains only 3 articles: the eponymous Neue Slowenische Kunst, about an art collective; the 3 sentence Noordung (NSK) which in my opinion should be merged into the preceding article; and Laibach (band), a band connected with/part of the collective. The articles in question are all already suitably categorised so I don't see any need to be merging this category elsewhere. kingboyk (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree; it is overcategorization. --Son 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Jersey High School Ice Hockey League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation by non-defining or trivial characteristic. This category groups high schools based on the hockey league to which they belong, and it is effectively an article in the category namespace. Empty and articlify to South Jersey High School Ice Hockey League. It may well be the case that the league is not notable, but there is some coverage of it (admittedly, most of it is incidental coverage), so ... . – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter-County Scholastic Hockey League, delete and do not articlify. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is exactly what categories are for: the subject is clearly defined and non-trivial. We often here complaints to change a list into a category and that's what you have here. Is there content you feel should be removed? Remove it. Other than that this seems to be an effort to delete something that should be fixed. Alansohn (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue isn't the subject's scope or the notability of the League, but rather whether membership in the hockey league is a defining attribute of these schools. As for the latter part of your post: no, there's no content that I want removed. Instead, I'm suggesting that the category description be turned into an actual article (that's what it is, really ...); that's also where the list of members would belong. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text came from the article that just was deleted at AfD. It was removed since it simply does not belong in the introduction of a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I see ... I didn't think to click on the redlink I included in my nomination statement. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Templatefy. Use the time it is being discussed here to create a navebox template for the league. I just removed the article text from the category that appears to have been added to retain the article hidden in the category after the AfD for the article. We really need to find a solution to the AfD to CfD ping pong game. Creating a category simply to get around a decision at AfD is the wrong approach for editors to take. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a navbox needed for the league when we don't even have an article for it? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Needed? That's a really hard standard. A navbox is used to navigate around articles with a common interest where the articles can be listed in the box. I don't see the presence or absence of a main article being a factor here. If a navbox addresses the need for information without creating an article or a category, why would that be a problem? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps "need" is too high ... Let's consider utility instead. I don't see that a template will add much of value to the articles. If membership in the League is non-defining, then a navbox for the League provides only trivial information about a subject (the membership of the League) that is not especially relevant to the subject of the articles (the high schools). Also, though I'm not certain whether any policy or guideline specifically requires that a navbox have a corresponding head article, I've only rarely encountered one that didn't (and those that didn't were generally at WP:TFD). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and/or Templatize per Vegaswikian. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being part of a hockey league is not a defining characteristic of a school. Its parent category appears to be about to be deleted as well Category:Eastern Pennsylvania high school ice hockey. A list is definately not apropriate as the league was already judged not notable enough and a template is not necessary for a league that doesn't even have an article. --Djsasso (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Djsasso. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - High school players and leagues fail Wikipedia notability standards. Flibirigit (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Any created lists or templates would undermine notability standards, and should not be created. Flibirigit (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above - NB if kept, parent category(ies) will be needed as it is now orphaned after this discussion of its sole parent resulted in "delete". Bencherlite^Talk 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N --Pparazorback 17:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: This category is too broad and too vague. There are a hundred more specific categories that should be used instead. 70.17.178.114 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the explanatory text says its for mixed heritage Eurasians.. but the category is not named as such. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its a notable mixed race and it is neither broad nor vague, considering that Asian and Caucasian are well defined. The alternative is adding cats like Chinese-Latvian, Indian-Belarussian, Japanese-Italian-Chinese, etc. It is used by mainstream publications SF chronicle, TIME, American Journal of Sociology. It is a term that has not been abused or shown to be used incorrectly in any way. A eurasian is by definition mixed heritage so 132.xx point falls by the wayside.Bakaman 02:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept, it should be renamed Category:Mixed-heritage eurasians 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Eurasian is by definition mixed heritage, that title is redundant.Bakaman 03:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eurasian is a dab page, Eurasian is an adjective pertaining to the supercontinent. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eurasian (mixed ancestry) wrong wikilink, but again the reliable sources I provided utilize the word Eurasian to mean mixed Asian/Caucasian. The only reason that the page says "mixed ancestry" is because it came after that Eurasian plate and other uses of the word, that do not need categories.Bakaman 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bakasuprman, but the category description should be filled out a bit, rather than just linking to the article. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, cats based solely on racial biology should be avoided. Moreover, neither the terms 'European' nor 'Asian' are completely uncomplicated. But the most difficult definition issue is that a 'Eurasian' would be any inhabitant of Eurasia, a rather well-known geographical concept, and that all Europeans and all Asians (possibly excluding island nations) are in fact 'eurasians'. --Soman (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, if the cateegory note and main article did not define it as something else. Have you ever seen Eurasians used to mean this? I haven't. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. 'eurasian' is a well defined criteria in Singapore and Malaysia, but to introduce this classification on a global scale would be a neologism. --Soman (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Eurasian (mixed ancestry) explicitly outlines what a Eurasian is. So do the reliable sources I provided among others. There is little ambiguity, the category itself has not been subject to battles and furthermore even if it was that is hardly a valid reason for deletion.Bakaman 00:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about [[Category:Mixed race]]? Sting_au Talk 11:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was relist for further discussion, now at CfD 2007 Dec 7. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Warsaw Uprising Insurgents to Category:Category:Warsaw Uprising participants

Nominator's rationale: Per Category:November Uprising participants and Category:January Uprising participants. Alternatively, if CfD experts prefer, rename all of them to Category:People of ... Uprising (per Category:People of American Revolution).--User:Piotrus

• Rename but to Category:Warsaw Uprising insurgents. The cat name should clarify that it is limited to the persons who actually undertook the rebellion, not just anyone who happened to be involved in general. 'People of...' cats are more vague, and could possibly lead to inclusion of the enemies of the uprising as well. --Soman (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Merge both Category:Rolling Stones songs written for other artists and Category:Songs covered by The Rolling Stones to Category:The Rolling Stones songs. Merge Category:Songs covered by Cream to Category:Cream songs. (It was tagged as well.) - jc37 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rolling Stones songs written for other artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Songs covered by The Rolling Stones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:The Rolling Stones songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist, seems a little too detailed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom - in fact neither of 2 I looked at: "As tears go by" or "Out of time" seem to meet the definition of the first cat anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, and also merge Category:Songs covered by Cream into Category:Cream songs. There have been previous discussions about "songs covered by" and "songs introduced by" cats here, here, here, here, and here. We don't need this level of detail in categories. Some songs also have complex histories that would make things difficult. ×Meegs 17:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Meegs; this is analogous to "composition by performance" which would be a type of overcategorization. --Lquilter (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Celtic Cup(Soccer) to Category:Celtic Cup (football)

Nominator's rationale: To match the name of the main article in the category. – PeeJay 14:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. – PeeJay 14:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Using the term football in an Irish context is messy, and I would suspect that there might already be a cup called "the celtic cup", there are probably over a 1000 football cup competions in Ireland. I would suggest the main article is moved to Soccer, possiblly move category to Category:Celtic Cup (Soccer) Fasach Nua (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are more countries in play here than just Ireland. The majority of people in Scotland and Wales refer to the sport as "football", and I'm sure a rather large number of people in both Northern Ireland and the Republic would recognise "football" as meaning "association football", even if it's not a majority. I mean, there's 8 million people in Scotland and Wales combined, as opposed to the 5 million in the whole of Ireland, so it's not hard to see where the majority lies. – PeeJay 14:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You are correct a significant number of people from countries involved in this competition do use the term football to mean association football, but the overwhelming majority of the population of Ireland consider the term football to mean Gaelic football. Even in Wales I suspect that the term football means Rugby football to the majoority of the population(I could be wrong). So for the teams involved in this competition it is only Scotland that it can be stated with certainty that use the term footballl to describe Soccer in a majority of cases. An exception such as that used in the United States men's national soccer team is not unreasonable. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As a Welshman, I believe I can say with some confidence that "football" usually refers to Association football over here. Anyway, I think we've established that the majority of people from the countries involved use the term "football" to mean "Association football", so surely that's the term we should use for the category title. – PeeJay 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what about -> Category:Celtic Cup ? Fasach Nua (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why do we even need this category? пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would say it's pre-emptive, so that we have somewhere to put individual articles for each of the three scheduled Celtic Cup tournaments. – PeeJay 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - at the very least, make the title fit naming conventions, i.e. either Category:Celtic Cup (soccer) or Category:Celtic Cup (football). But I prefer the latter. ugen64 (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — agree with User:Ugen64 that at a minimum, there needs to be a space between "Cup" and the open parenthesis, and "soccer" (or "football") should be in lower case. Current category name looks like a mistake. Andrwsc (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - rename to Category:Celtic Cup (football) for consistency within Category:European national football teams (where soccer is not used at all). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the category is holding the articles for the cup and for the national teams who might one day play for the cup, which as of yet does not exist because this is a future sporting event and no such competition has as yet taken place. This is a small category with little or no growth potential and is also a rather loose association for a category. Categorizing sports teams on the basis of sporting events in which they might one day participate is a bad idea. It would be like putting Category:Super Bowl on every NFL team because they might potentially play in one. Listify the teams in the article for the competition and delete the category. Otto4711 18:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is "delete" even an option in a "Categories for renaming" discussion? – PeeJay 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it is - once the category is under discussion, the result will be whatever the consensus of that discussion is - rename as nominated, rename to another suggestion, merge, reverse merge, delete, etc - even if that was not where the discussion started. Bencherlite^Talk 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto - no need for a pre-emptive category about a cup competition that may or may not take place. If it does take place, then categorizing the teams by it would not be right - articles about the national team are not put into categories for the tournaments that the team plays in. Compare, for example, Category:2006 FIFA World Cup and its fellow sub-categories of Category:FIFA World Cup tournaments, which don't include the main article for each team in the categories for the World Cups for which they qualified. If the Celtic Cup does take place and appropriate articles can be written about it, and / or such a category is required as a parent category for appropriate sub-categories, then it might be needed - but not until then. Bencherlite^Talk 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that the category doesn't need to include the articles of the teams that will compete in the competition, but you seem to be assuming that the competition is still at the proposal stage. In actual fact, the tournament has been all but finalised, and the first edition will commence in August 2009 and finish in February 2010. – PeeJay 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, we're still 18 months away. There's a lack of articles at present requiring this category, that's the point. Bencherlite^Talk 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough :-) – PeeJay 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was listify then delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim astronauts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A non notable intersection of religion and profession. Snocrates 14:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable intersection, see also many previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I note that searching for "Muslim astronauts" generates a number of articles about them. [7], mostly on how to pray to Mecca from space. Since they are mostly around that one issue, I don't anticipate a full article being written, and it doesn't seem like Islamic identity would be a defining one for astronauts, per se. Unless other evidence is adduced to suggest that this topic would make a good encyclopedic article, then I'd incline towards delete. --Lquilter (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"... on how to pray to Mecca from space ..." Without looking up the articles, I would guess that the answer is "face the earth"? ;) Snocrates 23:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the articles, the problem is as much time as direction. DGG (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Maralia (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although it sounds like you might be able to make an article on it or at least I wouldn't oppose such a thing as Islam and space travel.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify at least - these will be hard to find otherwise, & are certainly of interest. The trouble is only a couple were long-term astronauts, so most don't really fit in a "Muslims by occupation" category here.Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Article-ify with a list per T. Anthony and Johnbod. I can plug in a references section. I know of at least a couple of fictional treatments that explicitly tackled the issue, too. --Lquilter (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. The intersection isn't meaningful here, and the precedents are strong. (And yes, Little Richard just turned 75. Ooh, my soul.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musicians by religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

and its subcategory Category:Seventh Day Adventist musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A non notable intersection of religion and profession/activity. The listed subcategory is the only thing in the parent category. The defintion for the subcategory is telling: "This category is for notable people who are Seventh-day Adventists and musicians." Not for musicians that make SDA-related music, that is, which could be a legitimate category. Little Richard (he's still alive?) is a member of the category, so it's quite clear it's not being applied in a useful way that doesn't create the non-notable intersection. Snocrates 14:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable intersection, see also many previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What I think we agreed to do was have categories like Category:Performers of Christian music. For some reason denominational subcategories were declared verboten, I disagreed with this decision, but anyway if a person wants a category of "SDA music" people that's the discussion they should do. Meaning ask if Category:Performers of Seventh-day Adventist music would be allowed.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Music and religion have innumerable intersections. Many singers profess a faith, yet do not sing XXXian Rock/Rap/Metal etc.Bakaman 03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But that would suggest that they would have Category:Their religion and Category:Their occupation; not that they need Category:Religion x musicians. That's why we went to the "performers of x religion music", because while such categories should include performers of a particular religion are influenced by that religion in their occupation, the tendency of editors would be to just file everyone who was that religion and that occupation in the category. Does that make sense? --Lquilter (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In principle I agree with you. In practice it was decided against doing this. It's not that restrictive though as Category:Performers of Christian music, or what have you, does not specify that the person only does Christian/Buddhist/whatever music. Going through this category Del Delker, Wayne Hooper, King's Heralds, Hugh Martin, William Layton Nelson, Wintley Phipps, Robert Edwin Seamount, Annie R. Smith, and Take 6 could all be justified in a Category:Performers of Seventh-day Adventist music. If denominational "performers of X music" categories are still forbidden (Exempting Category:Hillsong musicians) than I think virtually all names here fit the existing Category:Performers of Christian music.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per ProveIt's handy list of precedents, demonstrating the consensus that this is a non-notable intersection, and per Lquilter eloquent explanation. Bencherlite^Talk 22:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Sting_au Talk 11:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename all, for consistency with current lead article name format, and in the absence of an established overriding convention for Canadian placename cats. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lethbridge, Alberta to Category:Lethbridge

Category:Lethbridge, Alberta media to Category:Lethbridge media

Category:History of Lethbridge, Alberta to Category:History of Lethbridge

Category:People from Lethbridge, Alberta to Category:People from Lethbridge

Nominator's rationale: Article is at Lethbridge and there are a host of associated categories that do not use the provincial disambiguator. Proposing renames of these for consistency. Snocrates 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --Kmsiever (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would be more inclined to move those that don't use the province to use of the province. --Djsasso (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (nominator) With respect to the above comment, my proposal could have gone either way on this. The reason I went the way I did was that I saw the article was at Lethbridge and the vast majority of categories used Lethbridge without the use of "Alberta", so I assumed it was probably the preferred way of naming this city. I have no strong opinion on which way it should be, just that they should all be consistent one way or the other. Snocrates 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom on the basis that the general preference is for category names to follow the name of the main article. Bencherlite^Talk 22:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename as nominated, consistency. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Red Deer to Category:People from Red Deer, Alberta

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with article Red Deer, Alberta and parent category Category:Red Deer, Alberta. Snocrates 11:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to match Red Deer, Alberta, for consistency. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Snocrates. "from Red Deer" is too vague, plus it's inconsistent with the articles and categories mentioned. CherryFlavoredAntacid (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, since there is also a Red Deer county. Kevlar67 (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Delete - (And noting existing list at Legendary Pokémon.) - jc37 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legendary Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Category has no potential for growth as the majority of the articles it once contained have been merged into lists, and 3 others may follow. The main article sums up all the needed information more appropriately. Simply not needed anymore. - MK ( ^talk/_contribs ) 10:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename Category:Disamb-Class articles to Category:Disambig-Class articles. Perhaps, as jc37 notes, this should ultimately be Category:Disambiguation-Class articles, but more discussion is probably needed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disamb-Class articles to Category:Disambig-Class articles

Nominator's rationale: Rename: Most of the categories within Category:Disamb-Class articles are in the format "Disambig-Class project articles" and only one of 115 uses "Disamb-Class." Renaming the category to the most widely used format seems appropriate. Scott Alter 08:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - doesn't matter what the norm is for this - we just need consistency. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to Category:Disambiguation-Class articles. Let's save us the next noms and just use the full word. One question though, should it be Class, or class? - jc37 07:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I would not object to using the full word in the category, I believe this would require much more discussion than we are getting here. Disambig-Class is currently what most WikiProjects use in to name their categories, as evident by the categories in Category:Disamb-Class articles. Renaming this category using the existing consensus by action should not be a big deal. But renaming the category to something new and changing the capitalization seems a bit much. (-Class with a capital C is standard for articles by quality, while -importance with a lowercase i is standard for articles by importance. A change in this should be discussed elsewhere - probably at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.) I'd rather see a separate discussion to change the naming scheme, before there is a CfD to rename to a potentially un-desired new scheme. --Scott Alter 14:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was merge Category:Dab-Class articles to Category:Disamb-Class articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Dab-Class articles to Category:Disamb-Class articles (surely to Category:Disambig-Class articles)

Nominator's rationale: Merge: Category:Dab-Class articles was recently created and has the same purpose as the widely used Category:Disamb-Class articles. The creator of the category may have made it mistakenly, as there are only 2 categories currently in Category:Dab-Class articles, both of which were added by other editors many days after the initial creation of this category. Scott Alter 08:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eergh - surely you mean the newly proposed merge target above. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it should be merged into the category mentioned in the above section - currently Category:Disamb-Class articles, but ideally renamed to Category:Disambig-Class articles. --Scott Alter 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Disamb-Class articles, or the proposed alternate ... either would be reasonable, I really don't care what name we use, other than wanting them to be consistent. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Disambiguation-Class articles (or class), per nom above this one. - jc37 07:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This CfD should be considered separate from the previous nomination. Since there is consensus here that this should be merged into the current Category:Dab-Class articles (or whatever that category will be renamed to), this category should be merged even if the previous nomination does not pass this round. To the closing admin: please do not take all of these merge votes to different categories as lack of consensus. Everyone here wants this to be merged with the current category for disambiguation articles, which is currently Category:Disamb-Class articles, but may be a different category pending the previous CfD above. --Scott Alter 14:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Keep both - However, in going over Category:Jewish politicians, I note that there are some entries and subcats that may be confusing to someone glancing over the category with the idea that these are contemporary politicians (Exilarchs, for example). The category should be cleaned up in order to make the historical distinction more clear. - jc37 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish politicians

Category:Jewish American politicians

This is a relisting of 2 categories from this CfD discussion due to a concern that "since Judaism is an ethnicity as well as a religion. This is reflected in 3 of its subcategories, which are for Jews who governed in a specifically Jewish manner/location." - This was somewhat contested, and so these are being relisted in the hopes of determining consensus. - jc37 07:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - jc37 07:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. It seems to me that there may be a good case for keeping Category:Jewish American politicians, because Judaism has a very high profile in American politics. However I'm not so sure in other countries: the Jewish people I have known of in politics Ireland have not made much of an issue of their religion, and few of the Jewish people in British politics are notably "Jewish politicians". So my question is whether it would be possible to keep only :Category:Jewish American politicians, without any other such categories? I'm sure other editors will have their own thoughts on whether this is the right thing to do, but what I'm asking for now is whether it is feasible? It feels odd to propose a triple intersection with only two parents, and to have an American category without a French or British one, and wonder whether we would open a can of worms by setting such a precedent. --08:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
• Delete Category:Jewish politicians, merge Category:Jewish American politicians into Category:American Jews and Category:American politicians. Jc's decision on all religious categories should be followed here, despite the (correct) statement that Judaism is an ethnicity. Politicians should only be characterized by where they are from and what party they belong to. When ethnicity is central to their actions (not their beliefs), it likely will be reflected in their party as well, as per the Kurdistan Workers Party.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - There is certainly no concensus for deletion of ethnic categories. I only have time for a brief comment right now, but I direct attention to the fact that we have numerous ethnic categories for politicians, and rightly so -- Jewish politicians should not be singled out for removal. There are currently 13 ethnic sub-cats of Category:American politicians; in addition, there are 9 other ethnic sub-cats in Category:Politicians by ethnic group, and no doubt others that exist but haven't yet been added to that parent category. Cgingold (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably should explain my reasoning in more detail, to avoid the suggestion that I'm singling out the Jewish categories. I can see three groups of people this category can apply to: Jews in Israel, Jews in the United States, and Jews in countries with smaller percentage Jewish populations than those two. The first group, Israelis, is covered well by Category:Israeli politicians; in fact, nearly every person in that category could go in Category:Jewish politicians. The second category, US Jews, is set in a place where Jews are everywhere in the political spectrum: there's Elliott Abrams and Dianne Feinstein and everyone in between. So there's nothing particularly Jewish-related you can derive from this category, and they then belong in Category:American politicians and Category:American Jews. The third category, Jews from places with smaller Jewish populations, might create some need for categories if Jews need particular Jewish parties to express their views, but they don't in the modern UK, Russia, or any other major country as far as I know. So the clarity you can get from a category just isn't here, in my opinion, any more than my article should be tagged Category:Jewish game designers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although I see potential problems with this ethnicity can be relevant in US politics. See Category:African American politicians, Category:Greek American politicians, Category:Polish-American politicians, or Category:Vietnamese-American politicians for some examples, I have less of an opinion on the parent, but it might be useful for organizational purposes.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both, but for different reasons:
  • Aside from the subcategory "Category:American Jewish politicians," Category:Jewish politicians contains 3 categories for Jewish politicians who governed Jews, 1 in modern Israel and 2 in antiquity (the exilarchs maintained a certain degree of Jewish political independence.) So these categories are linked by the topic of Jewish self-governance. Perhaps, though, politicians who simply happen to be Jewish should in fact not be included in the category. It would be appropriate to discuss this at WikiProject Judaism, and to include the results of that discussion at the top of the category page.
  • Category:Jewish American politicians is one example of other similar ethnic categories found in Category:American politicians. (Asian Americans, African Americans, German Americans...). I think Jews are no less notable than other American minorities, and also in fact that American minorities/ethnicities are notable in general, and particularly in the case of politics. --Eliyak T·C 00:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Jewish politicians per previous CFD. The issue of whether religious affiliation is a relevant criteria for categorizing politicians is dependent on national context, I think it is highly dubious whether the American cat should be kept. --Soman (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jewish American Politicians, since it is of obvious long-standing political relevance. I'm not sure whether Jewish Politicians is a useful category--as BHG implies, it makes more sense if we do other national categories also DGG (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep -- both categories should be kept per Cgingold and Eliyak. --Wassermann (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ethnic categories aren't needed for politicians: Jewish politicians aren't fundamentally different than non-Jewish ones, the same is true with the other ethnic classifications under American politicians - which should all be deleted, but is history predicts future, the Jewish one will get deleted and the others will be kept (Wikipedia finds it easy to delete categories and articles about Jews and Kurds for some reason - easy to pick on), or they'll all be kept so that Wikipedia isn't accused of anti-semitism. Let's be honest here: is a Jewish politician any different than a non-Jewish one? Is Trotsky the same as Kissinger? enough said. Carlossuarez46 00:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion categories are often deleted and Jewish categories are sometimes stuck in the crossfire there. Wikipedia's logic, if you can call it logic, is that religion is this uncomfortable thing that is totally private, but ethnicity or sexual-orientation are vitally important to almost everything you do. (From photography to directing theatre. The only thing more significant to your occupation is being from Being from Cincinatti.) Anyway that's the way it is so it seems unjust to break the pattern for this one ethnic group.--T. Anthony 10:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view is consistent: all these religion, race, ethnicity categories should go, those who aren't consistent are inflicting the injustice you describe. I hope you will have the courage to denounce it and combat it. Carlossuarez46 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's case by case for me. I guess I've decided to largely accept ethnicity-occupation categories as they are useful in some cases. Although this isn't universally true and I'm willing to argue against them. In the case of politics it can be useful. Although I'd be fine with switch or replace it with something like "members of Jewish political organizations."--T. Anthony 23:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Religion and politics are an extremely notable intersection and therefore meet WP:CAT.Bakaman 03:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As mentioned, the intersection of religion and politics is ipso facto notable and the category should be kept. -- Avi 02:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While not all such intersections are notable, those of minority religions, where there have long been issues of acceptance by the Christian majority, are meaningful intersections. Alansohn 03:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was keep and don't rename, per cat:All Non-free Logos discussion immediately below. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Non-free Logos to Category:Non-free logos

Nominator's rationale: See below. --- RockMFR 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was keep, don't rename. Associated with cleanup processing. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:All non-free Logos to Category:Non-free logos

Nominator's rationale: Merge and rename with proper caps. These categories serve the same purpose. If there is a difference, please enlighten me :) --- RockMFR 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it looks like Category:All non-free Logos is a catch-all category combining the contents of the other subcats of Category:Non-free Logos (a similar procedure exists for unreferenced articles). I would be wary of merging them without knowing more about how the categories are populated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please dont merge its used for catching subacts. β^_command 13:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Betacommand, whose bot does much of this sort of tidyup work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was speedy delete (author request and empty). Bencherlite^Talk 16:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino television soap operas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I created this category, but it is empty and a duplicate for Category:Philippine drama, which is the proper term. — TAnthony^Talk 06:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just tag it with ((db-author)). Otto4711 (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was speedily deleted by Xaosflux. Bencherlite^Talk 07:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dune religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty and unnecessary category. — TAnthony^Talk 06:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged for speedy delete as empty. Otto4711 (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename both, as nominated. Old cat names to be retained as soft category redirects. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Spreadsheets to Category:Spreadsheet software
• Category:Online spreadsheets to Category:Online spreadsheet software

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These categories discuss software to the virtual exclusion of any other aspect of the spreadsheet (originally a physical item, now far eclipsed by its electronic incarnation). Also, they are certainly not dealing with individual spreadsheets. So "spreadsheet software" seems like the best description of the topic, especially in the case of Category:Online spreadsheets. This nomination is in response to/continuation of last week's rename of Category:Free spreadsheets to Category:Free spreadsheet software. --Eliyak T·C 03:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with the logic, but it won't seem very intuitive to many editors. At the very least, the existing categories will need to be salted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, just redirect the old names to the new ones when it is done. Recury (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, leave redirects for consistency and ease of future use. Bencherlite^Talk 09:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete, ambiguous and unnecessary. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a mobile phone platform. Articles are interlinked and elsewhere categorized. Name is also ambiguous so if retained should be renamed so as to make it clear what it's for (not androids). Otto4711 (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overly generic name that is properly used to categorize androids, male human-form robots. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was upmerge, then delete as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Fox vehicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Article has one article in it now due to article consolidation, and that one may be gone soon too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Star Fox and Category:Fictional vehicles to keep the article, if it survives, in these category structures. Otto4711 19:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Delete - jc37 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Category has one character, Hagrid, in it now and he is in other categories. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So he runs on ... never mind, Delete Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ambiguous classification, undefining even of these fictional characters as far as I can tell, and unnecessary one that could be handled by list if needed at all. (And like Johnbod I too thought of cars: I would have put, for instance, not Hagrid but the car that they took in, what, book 2 or 3? to get to school.) --Lquilter (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Delete - The Dursley family is already in a subcat, and Muggle isn't a character. - jc37 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Only has the Dursley family and the article about Muggles, which makes it really a category of one. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Harry Potter characters, there's not nearly enough to make this useful. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Harry Potter characters; can't think of any more to the end of the series, except un-named prime minister, so no potential to expand. Johnbod (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was speedy delete, empty. Bencherlite^Talk 07:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Merchants in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Now empty category because of character article consolidation of late. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as empty, per WP:CSD#C1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per bhg Johnbod (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Delete - jc37 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, see January 25th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, per WP:OCAT#Performances_by_performer and per the January 25th discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent not to categorize actors in such a manner. Bencherlite^Talk 07:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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