< September 1	September 3 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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, arbitrary inclusion criteria & otherwise ill-conceived. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary category (why pick 50% as threshold). Bad English for the name. Numbers for specific cities will always be open to debate. Balcer 00:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod 01:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this reminds me of Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 27#Cities destroyed during World War II and subcategories. Carcharoth 19:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I think there is something special in situation where more then 1 in 2 people from the specific place are killed within few years. This creates new quality and should somehow recognizable. How do you propose to make it visible? This category came to mind when I edited article about my mother birthplace. Do you know many towns where 90% of population (5400 out of 6000) was removed during WW2? Cautious 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category with arbitrary inclusion criterion and poorly worded title. Wryspy 07:15, 9 September 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 below. 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, ill-defined. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Subjective inclusion criteria. What constitutes a damsel? Or distress for the matter? Does the fact that Zelda and Amy Rose fight back these days make them non-damsels? Also, why is this grouping notable? Doesn't the article damsel in distress cover the topic succinctly? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. I know we've done this once before, with much discussion centering around Lois Lane. Otherwise, delete per nom as a subjective and arbitrary category. Every female soap opera character could end up here eventually. Otto4711 19:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it is up to one's interpretation as to what makes one a damsel in distress. Irk_{Come in for a drink!} 18:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective and not encyclopedic or defining. Carlossuarez46 16:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's an ancient fictional archetype, but it's useless as a category unless someone can devise a clear and succinct set of inclusion criteria. The following text from Damsel in distress seems like a good start "She is almost inevitably a young, nubile woman, who has been placed in a dire predicament by a villain or a monster and who requires a hero to dash to her rescue." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To save Otto etc the trouble, I'll ask you to define "young", "nubile", "dire" & "villain" here. Johnbod 03:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjective category. Wryspy 07:13, 9 September 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 below. 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 Closed due to WP:FORUMSHOP. The nominator has nominated the same subject for RFC and AFD at the same time in the effort to get a sympathetic audience. I came here via the Request for Comment. Am closing until RFC is resolved. Balloonman 03:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dharmic_religions Highly overused phrase on Wikipedia. If the mere existence of the phrase as a Wikiedia article is already very doubtful (See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dharmic_religion) then the category should have certainly no place in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia_talk:Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board#Dharmic_Religions.Andries 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least until AfD is resolved. This nom is premature. The category could in any case be justified from dharma, regardless of the other article. Johnbod 19:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, what should be the name of the category? It cannot be dharmic religion because it an obscure neologism. Andries 20:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category names do not have to be recognised and referenced phrases in themselves; most in fact are not. Johnbod 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I think we should avoid propagating neologisms, especially those that might be politically motivated - at least according to the only RS reference to 'dharmic religions'. Hornplease 00:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is approporiately descriptive, why would there be a problem with it's naming? 132.205.44.5 01:58, 3 September 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 below. 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.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by award. This does not appear to be among the most prestigious awards and being a recipient of the award does not appear to be a defining characteristic for the people who received it. There is a list in the article for the award. Otto4711 16:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable award. /Slarre 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the reliable sources that indicate the award is notable would be...? The article itself is sourced by the home page for the award and Google pickings are pretty slim. Otto4711 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what you search, there are many different spellings on "Gaddafi". /Slarre 18:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm going by the spelling that's in the article and category name. Were you planning on, oh I don't know, maybe offering any reliable sources? Otto4711 19:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here it is in the New York Times [1] DuncanHill 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:OC: In general, the winners of all but the most notable awards should be put in a list rather than a category. It may be useful to note the awards in the recipients' article. If an award doesn't have an article, it certainly doesn't need a category (and not every award that has an article needs a category). I'm not seeing the sources that indicate that this award is among the most notable. Otto4711 04:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as over-categorization by award. To take one of the prominent recipients, Nelson Mandela: he has over one hundred awards, including this one. Google reveals just 161 hits for him and this prize but 144,000+ for him and the Nobel Prize (or 175,000+ if you look for him and the the Nobel Peace Prize). It is non-defining as far as he is concerned. More generally, there is insufficient evidence that it is one of the "most notable" awards: one passing reference in the NYT does not establish the level of notability required, whereas multiple sources will confirm the notability of the Nobel Peace Prize, to use the same example. The information is better presented in a list, which already exists here, and it does not need its own category as well. Bencherlite^Talk 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That list of awards for Nelson Mandela is impressive. The last one was a bit surprising though: "Best sandcastle, Brighton beach. For his sandcastle made in the Summer of 2007. Little Timmy Taylor, aged 6, came 2nd."... Carcharoth 19:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor awards do not define people. Carlossuarez46 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-defining characteristics. Generally, almost all awards categories should be avoided. 01:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel Vozenilek (talk • contribs)

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 below. 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. Bduke 04:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - as below, eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 16:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:40, 6 September 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 below. 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. Bduke 04:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 16:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:40, 6 September 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 below. 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:Political positions of politicians. Everybody wants it to change, but the proposed renomination to "potential 2008 American presidential candidates" makes maintenance of the category unworkable, as candidates will drop in and out of the race over the coming year. This is better as an evergreen umbrella category like category:Career achievements of sportspeople. I picked "positions" rather than "views" because more of the articles use that terminology, and the rest of the article names should also be standardized, but that's not an issue for this page.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Political views by candidate to Category:Political views by politician

Nominator's rationale: Rename - not every "politician" is a "candidate." Otto4711 16:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to ~~Category:Political views by politician (typo in suggested name?)~~ (change) Bencherlite ^Talk 00:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, typo. Fixed. Otto4711 04:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the point raised below about the US Presidential aspirations of all the members of this category had eluded me. A rename along those lines would be better, I agree, such as Category:Political views of potential 2008 American presidential candidates as Johnbod suggests. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither name seems to address the specifics of the category - that it seems to contain current contenders for political office in the USA? If so, the category name should reflect that political unit. (Arguably other categories may be created for say the electoral policies of Gordon Brown & David Cameron, Alex Salmond & Wendy Alexander, or Jarosław Kaczyński & Andrzej Lepper.) It possibly should also be temporal, if the linked articles are about the candidates' current positions on issues, some of which may have changed (e.g. since 2003)? AllyD 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Rename /* per revised entry */ as it is unclear who or what these folks & oprinions are to a non-US audience. Else rename to something less ambiguous, like Category:Political views of 2008 presidential candidates Ephebi 22:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can happily wear Category:Political views of potential 2008 American presidential candidates Ephebi 11:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Rename to something These all seem to be potential 2008 presidential candidates, so why not cut the crap and say so:Category:Political views of potential 2008 American presidential candidates Johnbod 22:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose renaming to restrict to current presidential candidates. To the best of my knowledge, Pat Buchanan is not a potential 2008 presidential candidate. It is unclear where an article like Political views of Pat Buchanan on global affairs would go if this category were renamed to restrict it. There was also a similar article for Colin Powell, although it seems to have disappeared, which would also not have a home should this be restricted to 2008 presidential candidates. If there are similar articles for politicians outside the US then this category, renamed per the nomination, can hold them as well and should the category expand sufficiently then a breakdown by country would be appropriate. Otto4711 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Pat Buchanan's views have no presidential relevance then don't fit the WP criteria of WP:N for having a page on their own. In this case his biography page would be the place to link in his edicts & pronouncements (although his page already appears to hold plenty) Ephebi 07:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the poitical views of potential presidential candidates are the only ones worth having articles about is bizarre. Why wouldn't under WP:SUMMARY such an article be warranted for a political commentator and former presidential candidate? Are you further suggesting that the views pages for candidates be deleted as they drop out of the race? It certainly seems that way based on your statement. Are you further suggesting that it is impossible for a US politician who is not a presidential candidate to have political positions substantial enough to warrant a separate page? Otto4711 13:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reductio ad absurdum? The current discussion is about the category, not the page itself. Though yes, I might question the relevance of keeping a page on his platform and policies from 8 years ago, WP:ILIKEIT is no grounds. As a commentator he seems to have some influence and personally I'd find it logical and easier if any relevant issues be contextualised & folded back into his bio ( which already seems to duplicate his 'views' page). Rightly, we already have plenty of pages dedicated to significant political thought from people who have had the platform or the brains - such Marxism , Mein Kampf or Neoconservatism. Anyone take bets on there one day being an equivalent 'Buchananism'? 8-) Ephebi 13:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether Buchanan's personal political philosophy will endure, neither is that question relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is whether altering this category will cause the article that currently exists to become uncategorized or uncategorizable. If this is deleted then the Buchanan page will be left only in the rather vague Category:Paleoconservatism. Otto4711 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, if it must sit somewhere then there seems about right to me. Ephebi 16:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment all members seem to fit my proposed rename (even Buchanan), and the articles appear to have been written as a set with this in mind. If further articles turn up, other categories can be created around this one. 01:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Johnbod 16:18, 4 September 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 below. 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 wub "?!" 18:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Doesn't meet the exception laid out in the guideline and everything is appropriately interlinked and categorized. Otto4711 15:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:41, 6 September 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 below. 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 wub "?!" 18:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Does not meet the exception laid out at the guideline and the small amount of material is all appropriately interlinked and categorized. Otto4711 12:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:41, 6 September 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 below. 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, redundant with existing cat schemes, and evident bad-faith creation to boot. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Tendentious, bad-faith creation by User:The Bully Boy ("I am The Bully Boy. I like bullying people. I am a Christian.") for purpose of adding 9/11 hijackers and Al-Qaeda members,[2][3][4][5][6][7] presumably to imply synonymity between "Islamic thinker"/"Islamic activist" and "terrorist". Moreover redundant, as Category:Islamic scholars, Category:Muslim activists and Category:Muslim scholars suffice for any legitimate entries that might've been added." --Rrburke^(talk) 09:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Attack category. DuncanHill 10:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and inappropriate and vague. Even if I try to judge this purely on its possible merits, rather than whatever inappropriate use may be currently being made of it, it doesn't make a lot of sense. We don't have any other "thinkers and activists" categories, and if it's intended as an intersection category, it's too narrow. Xtifr _tälk 11:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:42, 6 September 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 below. 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 (and no merge), with tighter inclusion criteria documented at respective category pages. A valid and formal (if sometimes overlapping) distinction is served by having these separate. Sorting of entries and subcats can be pursued as an ongoing exercise, so NFA there.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge? Define more precisely? Neutrality^talk 06:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case if we keep Category:Fields of History were need to rename it to Category:Fields of history (lowercase h). Neutrality^talk 07:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done.--ragesoss 16:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I believe that 'fields of history' and 'history topics' are typical terms used by academic historians to divide up the entire subject of history into workable 'chunks'. Hmains 21:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt - but are they alternative terms for essentially the same thing, or is there a distinction? If there is a distinction, it is not clear from these two categories. "Fields" ought to be for larger divisions than "topics", if they are not just alternative terms. Many categories are in both. NOTE: Neither category has been tagged for is discussionJohnbod 21:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fields of history are distinct from history by topic. "Fields of history" are ways that historians categorize themselves and their work: "cultural history", "19th century American history", "women's history", "medieval history", "intellectual history", "history of science", etc. "History by topic" is more specific and not necessarily coincident with the divisions historians use. Generally, anything called "history of x", where x is not a political unit or other group of people (the field of history of science being one of the exceptions), isn't easily classified according to field. Both of these categories should be kept, in my opinion, but "fields of history" should probably have some brief explanation (and be renamed to lower-case history). In some cases of categories, Category:History of science for example, the usage will ambiguous and both categories will be necessary; "history of science" might be referring to the field of history (covered in Wikipedia by the article History of science and technology) or the actual history of the topic, science (covered by History of science), and of course many articles and subcategories rightly fall under both.--ragesoss 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an explanation of the the fields category, which I'll reproduce here:

"Fields of history" refers to the categories professional historians use to classify their broad areas of work within the overall discipline of history. Some of these categories (e.g., cultural history, social history, intellectual history) refer to historical method rather than specific topic of study, while others coincide or partially overlap with the practical classification of history by topic.--ragesoss 15:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, now can you expand on the 'history by topic' category explanation so it says more than just it is not 'fields of history'. And also move all the sub-categories and articles, as required, to their correct location--field or topic. I was trying to do this, but you know this much better. Hmains 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what can be said about "History by topic"; it seems pretty self-explanatory, and it's Wikipedia's own ad-hoc categorization, not something that mirrors use elsewhere. I've removed all the subcategories I thought were out of place in the two categories.--ragesoss 19:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following that explanation, Keep, but there ought to be a cross-reference at the by Topic category, and a considerable weeding-out of duplication. Category:Art history, Category:Egyptology and others are surely fields rather than topics? Further comments below. Johnbod 15:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about Egyptology; there is a separate categorization system for Category:History of Egypt, the topic-based classification. Art history is one of those ambiguous ones; the category includes both Art history (the field of history) and History of art (the history by topic). Of course, your general point is well taken: the categories should be used properly, without inappropriate overlap.--ragesoss 16:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - while there may be a technical difference between the "topic" and "fields" categories, the overlap is large enough not to merit having both. However, I think this should largely be a category of categories, with few if any articles having the category. Those currently in them should be recategorised inot appropriate subcategories. Peterkingiron 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is "topics" we're talking about, yes? I agree, but argue the opposite for "fields" below. Johnbod 15:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The reason "fields of history" is a valuable category for articles, distinct from "history by topic", is that every article in that category is not about history, but about the study of history. That is, they are about history as a discipline, rather than history as past events. It might make sense to remove all the subcategories in "fields of history" to "history by topic", since the bulk (but not all) content in each of those is about history-the-past, not history-the-discipline (though I think it makes more sense to allow the categories to partially overlap here, since those interested in history-the-discipline are also likely to want to see the material about history-the-past related to a field of history). But a merge will leave all the "fields of history" articles with no category at all, since they definitely don't fit under "history by topic", as they are about history in a completely different sense.--ragesoss 14:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in "Fields" do meet this description, & cover the historiography, but the categories (except one or two) don't. This is too confusing. All the block topic sub-cats like Category:Art history in "Fields" should be removed, and added to "Topics", if they aren't there already. "Fields" then should just contain Art history & maybe one or two others. Johnbod 15:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be acceptable, although I think leaving the subcategories in is more useful. Overlap is not a fatal problem. Also, I think there is a distinction between an article on a field and an article on historiography; while some of these articles do discuss historiography, that's not strictly what qualifies them for the "fields of history" cat. But there's enough overlap that it wouldn't be horrible if that's what we did (i.e., put only explicit historiography subcategories into "fields of history").--ragesoss 03:33, 7 September 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 below. 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, redundant. Update contents with Category:Role-playing video games +/or Category:Video game franchises as appte. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The category serves no purpose, as series tend to have their own categories which get listed in Category:Role-playing video games. SharkD 00:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant intersection between Category:Role-playing video games and Category:Video game franchises. -Sean Curtin 04:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant intersection. Wryspy 06:51, 2 September 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 below. 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, nondefining. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Non-definitive. At most, the game serves as the start of a series of games, in which case it should be moved into Category:Video game franchises. -Sean Curtin 04:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete excessively broad and non-defining. Wryspy 06:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - excessively broad. Carlossuarez46 16:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would cover most of WP notable games. Pavel Vozenilek 01:25, 9 September 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.

September 2

Category:Cities exterminated in more then 50%

Category:Fictional damsels in distress

Category:Dharmic_religions

Category:Recipients of the Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights

Category:Mike Gravel

Category:Mike Huckabee

Category:Political views by candidate

Category:Ron Paul

Category:Ted Stevens

Category:Islamic thinkers and activists

Category:Fields of History and Category:History by topic

Category:Role-playing video game series

Category:Video games with sequels