< October 29	October 31 >

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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plays on Oedipus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We shouldn't categorize works by their protagonists; otherwise there'd be lots with Jesus, Lenin, God, Apollo, etc., etc. If kept, the name has to change to something else. Carlossuarez46 23:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, I have added the Dryden to Oedipus, so now all (and various others) are covered there. Johnbod 01:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and don't listify, because the are already covered within the article on Oedipus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per succinct but excellent nom. Doczilla 02:36, 1 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emergency Response & Environmental Health and Safety (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: whatever this is, it's not a useful category name even Correcting The Capital Letters (combining as it does two concepts). Bencherlite^Talk 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as a conflation of two predominantly unrelated subjects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 31 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famine foods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The article famine food is wholly unsourced, but you can get a feel of how wishy-washy it is going to end up. Basically, famine foods are foods people eat when there's not much else about. Well, the imagination reels; a few lessons from history, would certainly suffice that we should include horse, shoes, paper, humans, urine, sawdust, and anything else you'd care to add to make this a quite indiscriminate category. Carlossuarez46 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Too variable across time, place and cultures to have a workable definition. Snocrates 23:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Snocrates's very useful reminder of where this will lead. In any case, Eating people is wrong... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The famine food should be deleted. Pavel Vozenilek 18:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is just like the Category:Exotic foods that we just deleted in the last month. --lquilter 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 02:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category and article, as being original research, and inherently POV biased. 132.205.99.122 19:36, 1 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 relisted on WP:CFD 2007 Nov 6. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Great Midwest Conference men's basketball tournament venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete we shouldn't be categorizing arenas based on what sporting tournaments have been held there - various venues are used for numerous events and giving a category for each to each would be cat clutter. Carlossuarez46 23:16, 30 October 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 relisted on WP:CFD 2007 Nov 6. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pakalomattom to Category:Pakalomattom family

Nominator's rationale: Rename, apparently this family has been famous in India for centuries and is unlikely to be interlinked as would be normal in a family confined to two generations or so. The main article is poorly sourced and may have much OR, which if removed would cast doubt as to the continuity and extent of this family, but that debate is probably appropriate first at the article's talk page and best now just to decide whether this family category is correct and to rename it as per other family cats. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename - trying to read through the...um...challenging main article, it does not appear that this is a "family" in the sense that families are categorized on Wikipedia. It seems more like a religious sect or denomination. Not appropriate for a family category. Otto4711 01:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Otto, though clan or caste might be better terms - there are 98 sub-families listed there, which rather takes it out of the usual ambit of family in English. Johnbod 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone suggest something better than the stand-alone Pakalomattom? do we pluralize it? If it's a caste, should it be deleted as we don't categorize by caste? Any thoughts? Carlossuarez46 21:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In trying to get through a number of the articles, many of which are in as poor a shape as the main article, and in looking at some Ghits, I find myself coming to the conclusion that this may be part of a walled garden. The articles are extensively interlinked and are appropriately categorized in multiple categories such as Category:Indian bishops and Category:Saint Thomas Christians so I question the need for the category. Otto4711 18:41, 4 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:OLPC to Category:One Laptop per Child

Nominator's rationale: Rename, expand the abbreviation. Carlossuarez46 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing here requires categorization under OLPC. The main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub and everything is appropriately interlinked. Otto4711 16:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't oppose that either, but if kept the acronym needs expansion. Carlossuarez46 21:49, 1 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 to Category:Basketball navigational boxes so that the template isn't uncategorised. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NCAA Division III basketball coach templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed for the one entry, also orphaned. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 30 October 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 both, empty. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Haven & British Holidays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only created to contain two nn holiday camps that are now at AFD, not every company gets/needs a cat. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

• Category:Holiday parks in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

for the same reason and per Vegaswikian; thanks! Carlossuarez46 01:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Would you consider adding Category:Holiday parks in the United Kingdom to the nomination since it only has the same two articles? Vegaswikian 00:06, 31 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fourth World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category covers too much without a clear cut-line, and was created just based on a not-well-known concept. Even better known concepts like "First World", "Second World" and "Third World" do not their categories. Mongol 20:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Concept seems well enough established. Johnbod 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; stateless groups of people - apparently mixed up based on race, ethnicity, language, religion, or whatever other stateless category you want to create. Hmmm, Mormons? LGBTs? Left handed people? Even just limiting it to ethnic groups - many countries are multi-ethnic and all their minorities are Fourth World people - there are probably more ethnic groups than extant languages (5000+) as cultural imperialism has led to language death there are around 200 countries a bunch of which have duplicate ethnic majorities, so 4800+ Fourth World communities. Not inherently meaningful or useful for comparison; just some one's view on the world's downtrodden. And it is very definitional and POV: is Israel a Jewish state - so ethnic Jews have a country and aren't Fourth World? oops, but its not an Ashkenazi state? so they're Fourth World; or a Sephardi state? so they are too. So Jews aren't statelss, but all their subgroups are. And the same game goes with Palestinians - they're stateless unless they are Arabs, who have a state (several, actually), etc..... Carlossuarez46 23:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because definition is too squishy and indefinite. Does the term apply only to "nations without a state" in developing countries? Do the Québécois qualify? Are groups that clearly have citizenship in a state (again the Québécois, or the Catalan people) in the Fourth World, or is it limited to people like the Palestinians who seem to be "stateless"? I also think there is another unrelated meaning to "Fourth World" which the article does not discuss — and that is "Third World" states that "go off the deep end", so to speak, and devolve into lawlessness without any meaningful central government, kind of like Somalia or Iraq right now, perhaps. Snocrates 23:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I personally think that Fourth World is quite an interesting concept and that it may catch on, but at this point it's too little known to make a viable category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 19:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of source on acceptance of term. Doczilla 02:54, 1 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 to WP:CFD 2007 Nov 6. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buscando a Timbiriche, La Nueva Banda contestants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete another category for these reality show contestants another (apparently the ones making the finals) is nominated below. Carlossuarez46 20:31, 30 October 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, with no prejudice toward pruning. Some of these articles may not belong in the new category, but there's no demand that a category be created to contain them.--Mike Selinker 00:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Human-computer interaction notables to Category:Human-computer interaction

Nominator's rationale: Merge, since there should be no articles about subjects which are non-notable, the two categories have the same meaning. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Notables has to go. Vegaswikian 08:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think general categories such as Category:Apple Inc. and individual biographies should be merged into the main Category:Human-computer interaction category. This is a category of people and organisations that "have made notable, lasting contributions to the field of Human-computer interaction". However, this leaves a great deal of ambiguity as to who belongs in the category: how notable and lasting must the contribution(s) be to justify categorisation? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nomination. The term "notables" will be unclear to many readers. When possible, category name needs to be self-explanatory. Doczilla 00:54, 7 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internal Party Crises and Revolts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete subjective inclusion criteria - what is a crisis? what is a revolt? A few Republicans in the US recently voted to override the president's veto of SCHIP is that a crisis? a revolt? Is the Iraq war a crisis for some party? Churchill changed parties twice I gather; is each a revolt? a crisis? Is Larry Craig a crisis? it's all in the eyes of the beholder and without some objective definition, this cat should go. If kept, ugh, it's capitalization should be standardized. Carlossuarez46 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Apparently you only get these in Canada also. Johnbod 19:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Two articles and one redirect doesn't make a useful category, though here might be scope for a category called something like "Internal politics of Canadian political parties" if there were mor earticles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 30 October 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. In case anyone wishes to restore the list of instructors to the article, it is available here. I will leave the actual restoration of the list to the discretion of involved editors (I have posted a note to this effect at Talk:The Teaching Company). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Instructors of The Teaching Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete not defining - these people aren't known for the few hours they sold their time and talent to this company to produce a tape for them; any more than a category for people who do the same for those producing tapes or videos for organizations dedicated to weight-loss, self-help, get-well, get-sober, get-thin, get-rich, pass the SAT/ACT/MCAT/bar exam, books on tape, or any number of other endeavors of similar minimal time consumption. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-defining. Otto4711 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created this category after I had ((prod))ed The Teaching Company. The original article included a cumbersome list of instructors that defied the rule on not having long lists in articles. Maybe this should be a list, not a cat? Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 20:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I can well imagine that these people are best known to the general public through their work for this company, whose CDs are apparently widely available in libraries and on P2P networks. I do believe that at least one of the instructors (Robert Greenberg, whose article could use some devanitizing) now exclusively works for them. But if a category is not appropriate for some reason - I'm not up to speed with the rules for categories - a list could serve too, I guess. Sandstein 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-defining quality. Doczilla 00:55, 7 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Madan Senki Ryukendo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete tv show category, no different than many other precedents. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. LeSnail 14:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. All five category members are linked via Template:Madan Senki Ryukendo, which is transcluded in all five articles. However, four category members are otherwise uncategorised; deletion would ideally be accompanied by recategorisation of the four or the addition of ((uncategorized)) tags. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Doczilla 00:55, 7 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serj Tankian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete unneeded eponymous category for this singer/actor. Carlossuarez46 18:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom and WP:OC. Otto4711 18:08, 30 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social liberals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete OCAT people by opinion and "social liberal" is relatively ill-defined and changed from time to time. Carlossuarez46 18:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, plus "liberal" notoriously means different things in different countries. As the article on Social Liberalism explains in the lead: "While the usage of the term social liberalism differs between Europe and the United States, Modern American liberalism and European social liberalism are highly similar with only few distinctions. In the U.S., however, the term social liberalism may be used as a synonym for social progressivism, while social liberalism in the European sense is simply referred to as "liberalism."" I'm glad they cleared that up. Not suitable for a category. Johnbod 18:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and per Johnbod as a relativist and unstable term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Johnbod. LeSnail 14:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; see also highly argued CFDs about Category:American liberals and Category:American conservatives from early this year. Hopelessly subjective based on local politics and personal politics. (CFD 1/21 Am cons and CFD 1/19 Am libs --lquilter 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 02:58, 1 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. Although the fact of being noted on the ISI's list may be important enough to warrant mention in individual articles, it has not been suggested that appearance on the list is a defining characteristic of the individuals in the category (also see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published list). While having a high citation count is important for academics, "has a citation count" and "appears on the ISI's list" are conceptually different (see construct validity). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ISI highly cited researchers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete not defining; somewhat trivial "award" that changes over time apparently - they use a 10 year rolling data base. These people are notable for their scholarship, not that their scholarship is on this list from ISI - if someone falls off are they suddenly no longer notable and we'll just delete their bio? Right. Carlossuarez46 18:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep:Admitedly I didn't think about the fact that people could "fall off" the list but I don't see it as a problem. It is even possible that at some time in the distant future someone we think is notable today might in hindsight not seem so important, indeed the idea of notability in wikipedia will surely change of a period of years. However certainly some people think it is important to be on the ISI Highly Cited list, and may even say that it is say more objective than being elected as a FRS. Of course citation counts are fallable: they are highly dependent on the field one works in and the language one publishes in for example. But in the end being on the list does mean that lots of papers in proper journals cite one's work a lot. It clearly is evidense of notability, its more that not being highly cited does not imply non-notability of an academic.Billlion 00:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are emphatically not the place to make the case for notability, because they do not permit references. There's no problem with mentioning the ISI notation in a particular biographical article, but it's not the correct type of information for the category structure. --lquilter 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Being a ISI highly cited researcher may be notable, and may be evidence of notability, but it is not defining. LeSnail 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is fine as the evidence for notability will be on verifiable information in the article on the person. Not as far as I can see a reson to delete the category -- but see below Billlion 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not a permanent award, but an ongoing classification; therefore will have horrible maintenance issues and be subject to recentism by definition. --lquilter 20:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 02:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maintenance issue goes away if it is taken to mean people who have been on the ISI highly cited list at some time (probably that means for ten years?). I expect at some time, if not already possible, it will be able to query the wp database to get lists of people where are in two categories, for example (were once) highly cited mathematicians. In that case it seems pretty useful to have the category. Billlion 15:15, 2 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 to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 7. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hong Kong dramas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete category for (questionably notable) cable tv stations in Hong Kong that show dramas; there are parallel categories for TV shows that are dramas but not for the channels that show such shows Category:Drama television series by nationality. Carlossuarez46 17:55, 30 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jewish comic book characters to Category:Jewish comics characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per all of the other subcats of Category:Comics characters by origin. Otto4711 17:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. (Emperor 21:47, 30 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Star Trek comic books to Category:Star Trek comics

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per convention of Category:Comics. Otto4711 16:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. (Emperor 21:37, 30 October 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 as nominated. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Family Guy music to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Merge - to Category:Family Guy and Category:Television soundtracks. Small category unlikely to expand and even if it does it will still be a small category. Otto4711 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merge. Single item category unlikely to grow. Vegaswikian 02:55, 31 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Book-packagers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with doubtful growth potential. Not needed for the single topic article and the subcat (which is categorized elsewhere). No prejudice to re-creation should there be a sudden influx of articles on book packagers. If retained, rename to eliminate the hyphen, which appears to be non-standard (I moved the lead article to the non-hyphenated following a review of online sources). Otto4711 16:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-useful category created solely to provide a parent for a dubious sub-cat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 30 October 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 to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 8. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Comic-book packagers to Category:Comics packagers

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per convention of Category:Comics. Otto4711 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Comic book publishing companies. This is too narrow and to subtle a distinction to merit is own category. There is no Comic-book packagers or Comics packagers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge following BrownHairedGirl - a number of these are already people who reprint titles. (Emperor 21:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose, it's a good little category doing no harm and a formative part of the history of the medium. Also saddened that I missed a large number of discussions which seem to have renamed several categories from comic books to comics with no real reason other than to follow perceived convention. Hiding Talk 10:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Hiding. It's not the same thing. The packagers differ from those commonly recognized as the publishers. A comic book packager does not package other kinds of comics. I've been wondering: Where did this supposed convention come from? There are too many kinds of comics (e.g., stand-up comics) for this to be consistently clear to all readers. Who decided this and when? Slow down on these changes to comics left and right. Give WikiProject Comics participants time to discuss this. Doczilla 00:58, 7 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 procedural keep, without prejudice to immediate renomination. On November 6, the main article was renamed to Western Soccer Alliance and the contents of the main category were relocated to Category:Western Soccer Alliance. Although the latter is generally discouraged during the course of an active CFD, I see no reason to reverse either of these moves in light of the explanation provided by Mohrflies and the fact that neither name is directly supported by a prior CFD precedent. Please note that this closure does not constitute an endorsement of the use "Alliance" in place of "League"; however, any subsequent nomination to rename "Alliance" to "League", if still desired, should probably not be limited solely to the players category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Western Soccer Alliance players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Western Soccer League players, to match Western Soccer League and Category:Western Soccer League. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not rename. The Western Soccer Alliance existed from 1985 to 1988. It changed its name to the Western Soccer League for only the 1989 season before merging with the American Soccer League in 1990. In other words, tagging guys as WSA players will be more accurate than saying they were WSL players.Mohrflies 01:29, 3 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/rename as nominated. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Comic books featuring anthropomorphic characters to Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic characters

Propose renaming Category:Comic strips featuring anthropomorphic characters to Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename/Merge - per convention of Category:Comics. Otto4711 16:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Johnbod 16:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. (Emperor 21:42, 30 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Furry comic books to Category:Furry comics

Nominator's rationale: Merge - per convention of Category:Comics. Otto4711 16:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. That'll teach them to offer money! Johnbod 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - unnecessary distinction. (Emperor 21:41, 30 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sailing in Dallas, Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, We prefer to categorize the specific by the general ... categories are general, articles are specific. Placing Sailing here seems like a bad idea... -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename to Category:Sailing in Texas as a subcat of Category:Sailing in the United States and of Category:Sports in Texas, remove the article Sailing from it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these (apart from sailing) are articles on lakes, which only mention sailing incidentally, if that. We don't have by state subcats for sailing or marinas etc yet, & I don't think adding a sailing cat (and then a fishing one) to every piece of water in the US so used is to be encouraged. There is also Category:Sports in Dallas, but I'm not sure they should even be merged there. Johnbod 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fair enough. Delete; a sailing in Texas category might have a purpose for grouping sailing clubs, sailing schools and races, but I agree that sticking a "sailing" cat on every body of water is very very very Bad Thing™ to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 30 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portable players supported by Rockbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Digital audio players, non-defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 30 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places named for Benjamin Franklin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, members have nothing in common except for their names, Categorization by name is inherently non-defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Thankfully, there is already a list for these places -- and any article with substantial content about Franklin can be place in Category:Benjamin Franklin. Cgingold 12:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify into the list. 132.205.99.122 20:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was a fan of the whole slew of eponymous cities and its subcats, but alas this falls squarely in the deletion zone based on precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 1 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1632 series writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - variety of performer by performance overcategorization, similar to previosuly deleted categories for franchises like Star Trek and Doctor Who. Otto4711 15:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OC#Performers_by_performance_venue.2C_and_vice_versa. Doczilla 00:59, 7 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Electric Flag albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Electric Flag albums, to match Electric Flag. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. Doczilla 01:04, 7 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Cellular devices to Category:Mobile phones

Suggest merging Category:Cellular Device to Category:Mobile phones

Nominator's rationale: Merge, redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregorB (talk • contribs) 12:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 30 October 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; a list exists at Ice Cube#Filmography. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ice Cube movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_8#Category:Richard_Harrison_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_3#Category:Hilary_Duff_movies
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_13#Category:Films_starring_Marilyn_Monroe
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_4#Category:Nicole_Kidman_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_3#Category:Films_by_actor
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_3#Category:Jim_Carrey_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_10#Category:Mariah_Carey_Films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_19#Category:Jim_Carrey_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_19#Category:Eleanor_Powell_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_19#Category:Samuel_L._Jackson_Films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_8#Category:Vijay.27s_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_13#Category:Petula_Clark_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_13#Category:Films_by_actor
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_9#Category:John_Wayne_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_8#Category:Elvis_Presley_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_8#Category:Bruce_Lee_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_24#Category:Jackie_Chan_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_28#Category:Ronald_Reagan_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_26#Category:Fred_Astaire_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_29#Category:Emily_Osment_Movies

Delete, we don't do Films by actor, since nearly every film would require dozens or categories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per nom, to avoid mind-boggling category clutter if this caught on. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both above. Johnbod 20:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above. We've thoroughly established that we delete this kind of performer by performance category. (Logically, this would be performance by performer, though, wouldn't it?) Doczilla 02:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, but listify, preferably in a BIO article on the actor. I think this was the solution adopted for TV performances some time ago. Peterkingiron 09:55, 1 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games based on comic books to Category:Video games based on comics

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the lead article and in line with naming convention for comics-related categories. Speedy? Otto4711 13:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename There is still some relics of naming everything "comic books" and this is one of them. Comics is a broader name and should certainly be used here. (Emperor 13:51, 30 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communication and Information Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: overlaps in meaning with Category:Science and technology studies, not obvious from name that this is a branch of sociology, likely to fill up with miscellaneous IT articles unless deleted or renamed, currently empty RichardVeryard 11:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, exactly the same fear as nom. Pavel Vozenilek 19:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Science and technology studies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 31 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Orange County to Category:Buildings and structures in Orange County, California

Nominator's rationale: Rename to the form used by all similar subcategories as well as the parent; there are several notable Orange Counties in the U.S. and consensus has been to disambiguate.- choster 09:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per convention of Category:Orange County, California. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Orange County. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree but check all the items are in California. Peterkingiron 09:57, 1 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 all. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Endemic birds of Canadian Prairies Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Endemic birds of Canadian Prairies Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Endemic birds of Canadian Prairies Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Endemic birds of Canadian Prairies Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: More categories apparently created through a misunderstanding of what "endemic" means. There are no birds endemic to Canada, let alone smaller regions such as these. JerryFriedman 05:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom MeegsC | Talk 07:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per precedent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Jimfbleak 11:09, 30 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irwin Allen TV Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: unnecessary category for TV shows by this producer. Carlossuarez46 04:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per preceent and per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 13:15, 30 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Literary event (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete one entry; what's a literary event? Ill-defined and subjective. Carlossuarez46 04:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vague and unhelpful. Otto4711 18:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Reading series, or delete that too. Johnbod 18:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. A Category:Literary events could be a good parent category for famous readings, notable series of readings, literary meetings or gatherings, and so on. --lquilter 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vaguely named, underpopulated category. Doczilla 02:56, 1 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 to Category:LSMR-401 class landing ship mediums with no prejudice against collapsing the categories if further information suggests they should be combined.--Mike Selinker 00:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LSM(R)-401 class landing ship medium (rocket) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete category for one entry; this seems pretty specific categorization but someone with more navy savvy might tell us that there are lots of notable ships of this genre and help find a parent category for this orphan; otherwise, off to the wrecking yard for this cat. Carlossuarez46 04:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. It seems unlikely that there will be a proliferation of articles on vessels of this type which meet notability criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There might be a case for this as part of a wider scheme, but the category has been given no parents. What seems to be the relevant parent Category:United States Navy amphibious assault ships is also full of unclassified or duplicate-classified articles. Not very ship-shape. Actually many Landing Ship Mediums have articles. Fatigue party on deck please! Johnbod 11:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since there is only one ship in the cat, delete and I'll add a more appropriately named cat. For the record, there were 12 ships in this class, and warships are inherently pretty notable; these served in various theaters including the end of WWII and throughout Korea. John, you are right about the poor classification in the amphibious assault ships category; want to help me clean it up? :) Maralia 13:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP There are five (5) additional articles that qualify as such but had not been catgorized (they have been now): USS Gunnison River (LSM(R)-508), USS Pee Dee River (LSM(R)-517), USS Powder River (LSM(R)-519), USS St. Joseph's River (LSM(R)-527), and USS St. Mary's River (LSM(R)-528). Many more are listed here. Mdhennessey 15:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good, but the category is still an orphan (no paraent cats), and also all articles in Category:United States Navy amphibious assault ships seem to be in both the parent and a sub-category, where one exists. This is wrong, and they should be removed from the main category. Cancel all shore-leave, but Keep when this is sorted. Johnbod 16:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to something clearer (changing my !vote). Reissue all shore passes, and call in the naval ship class experts. --17:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The 'five additional articles' are LSMR-501 class, not 401. I had researched this and updated Landing Ship Medium this morning, as well as adding those 5 other ships to Category:LSMR-501 class landing ship mediums. Maralia 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear. Cancel that shore leave again. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Something wrong with our dammed ships today! Johnbod 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, let me clarify that further research shows the distinction between 501 vs 401 is fuzzy; I have posted to the talk page of User:Mdhennessey with some sources so we can dig further. Maralia 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename if Kept' to Category:LSMR-401 class landing ship mediums to match the 501 category name. Vegaswikian 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename. I don't know enough about this to suggest which rename to go with.Doczilla 22:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Landing ship mediums would have about 10 members, and cover both classes (501 & 401). Since the work party seem to have vanished into bars, I think that is the way to go. If they ever give all ships in those classes articles (which seems all too possible) and have worked out the difference between them in the meantime, they can be split again. Johnbod 01:02, 8 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:La Nueva Banda singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete category for reality show contestants to become members of a band that hasn't yet released any albums (one was due last week, but for some reason didn't apparently come - at least not available in El Norte yet. Yes, the show was fun to watch, lots of backbiting and some talent, but ultimately more akin to performer by performance until (if ever) the band establishes notability. Carlossuarez46 04:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Doczilla 00:59, 7 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LSDj Users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete we should categorize musicians by the brand-name tools that they use in music creation like Category:Moog synthesizer users; Category:BASF tape users, etc.. Carlossuarez46 04:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as trivia per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 02:56, 1 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kintetsu Yoshino Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed for the 1 template categorized here. Carlossuarez46 04:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 30 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:KML Products (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, we shouldn't be categorize products by what (computer) language they use - it'll be a mess before we're through. The capitalization is off as well. Carlossuarez46 04:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 19:43, 31 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jazz concepts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete ill-advised category for an ill-defined purpose; what do these 2 items demonstrate about "Jazz concepts" that no other Wikipedia articles do? Me either. Carlossuarez46 04:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ill-defined category which actually contains nowt about concepts, just an article on an experimental musical instrument and a separate article on its nickname, which ought to be a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - great! as Louis Balfour would say. Johnbod 23:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vaguely named, inadequately defined category. Doczilla 02:57, 1 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kino's Journey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete eponymous cat for a small fiction franchise, a few articles that should/could be interlinked. Carlossuarez46 04:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:OC. Otto4711 19:34, 4 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 to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 7. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kernel methods for machine learning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete ill-defined category, with subjection inclusion criteria apparently; does not add to navigation between similar articles; these seem sufficiently diffuse that see also's would likely be the best way but this category is not a good idea. Carlossuarez46 04:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The definition may be weak, but this sounds like a particular approach to machine learning. I have parented it in Category:Machine learning, and if the category is going it should be upmerged there rather than deleted; but it looks to me more like a keep. It would be good to have input from someone who understands a bit more about the technologies in this field. Any idea where we could ask for help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 30 October 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Joint Policy Board for Mathematics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed for the 4 members of this "joint policy board" - not every group that has a few members needs an eponymous category; this one certainly doesn't - all 4 members are mentioned in the article. Carlossuarez46 04:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and as a form of performers by performance category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Doczilla 01:00, 7 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 to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 7. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japan Post Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed for a parent company and its 4 or so subsidiaries, which could/should be linked from the parent and each other - most are stubs now but could grow; we generally don't do this with corporate subsidiaries any way, no reason to break precedent. Carlossuarez46 04:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 09:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, they weren't corporate subsidiaries until last month, when Japan Post was privatized. The privatization process was a major national political issue and continues to be a major news story. I think this serves a purpose, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to do other than leave a neutral comment. Dekimasuよ! 10:18, 1 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 to Category:Rocky Horror songs. While there is a relatively substantial degree of disagreement about what the title should be, there is agreement to move away from the current title. In that respect, two factors influenced the choice of Category:Rocky Horror songs. First, Category:X songs is the clear convention of Category:Songs from films (only 2 of 18 subcats deviate), whereas Category:Songs from musicals has no clear convention (there is a 20-17 split). Second, as far as I could discern from the articles, all 7 songs currently in the category were in both the play and the film. Thus, the need create separate categories of songs for The Rocky Horror Show and The Rocky Horror Picture Show seems less immediate. The title proposed by the nom has the added advantage of conforming to the main category for the Rocky Horror series: Category:Rocky Horror.

This closure does not preclude an immediate renomination, but any future nomination to rename this category from its new title might do well to also involve Category:Rocky Horror, or somehow be part of a broader strategy for reorganising articles related to the Rocky Horror series. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs from Rocky Horror to Category:Rocky Horror songs

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other subcats in Category:Songs from films. Barno 01:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move as per nome and WP:MoS --lincalinca 01:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant rename per nom, for consistency, The convention is clear, but this looks to me like a convention which should be changed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment But it is also a subcat of Category:Songs from musicals, and was a musical first, and there the convention, if any, seems to go the other way. Johnbod 11:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Songs from The Rocky Horror Show or Category:The Rocky Horror Show songs per actual title of the work. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree, but the musical was The Rocky Horror Show & the film The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Johnbod 16:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's why "Category:Rocky Horror" is used to cover both the stage and film works. Most of these songs were in both the stageplay and the film, so the song category should be named in a way that covers both. Barno 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all of the songs except Time Warp to Rocky Horror Picture Show (or merge into a single article), relocate Time Warp to Category:Rocky Horror and delete this category. Except for TW the songs from RHPS (and I say this as an enormous fan) are not independently notable. See for precedent Songs from Les Miz. Otto4711 17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a recent mass-AfD of these RH song articles, and there was not consensus to delete them (it was a no-consensus close). People are still adding third-party sources to some of these articles, demonstrating at least some amount of notability beyond mere fan-newsletters. Note that a couple of the songs where no references have been found currently have no articles. Barno 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The name should state The Rocky Horror Show or The Rocky Horror Picture Show for any movie songs that weren't in the play. Doczilla 02:38, 1 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.