< September 24	September 26 >

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 14:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:George Clinton songs

Category:Bootsy Collins songs

Category:Funkadelic songs

Category:Parliament songs

Delete and Upmerge to Category:P-Funk songs

Nominator's rationale: Category:P-Funk songs contains nothing but these four sub-categories. These categories may be useful one day, but right now they're overcategorization. The first two categories have one article each, and the third has four. Only the fourth has a significant number (15), which may militate against its deletion. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Funkadelic songs and Category:Parliament songs, Upmerge the rest. The two categories mentioned are still useful with 4 and 15 entries respectively. Though these two groups consisted of mostly the same musicians, their repertoires are distinct enough to warrant a separate category for each. InnocuousPseudonym 00:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all the subcats and relocate them to Category:Songs by artist and delete the P-Funk category. The songs should be categorized by the actual artist per the convention of Songs by artist but the pseudo-genre P-Funk category serves no real purpose. Otto4711 01:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Category:P-Funk songs is equivalent to a Category:Songs by artist. Parliament-Funkadelic, usually shortened to P-Funk, was a single band that, for several reasons, recorded under the names Funkadelic and Parliament with virtually the same personnel at any given time. (Of course over time people joined or quit the band.) When problems with recording contracts caused George Clinton to lose the rights to those names, he started recording — with the same personnel — under his own name.

Bootsy Collins is slightly different. He and the members of his band were all part of the P-Funk collective, but they were a more cohesive unit who recorded and toured on their own (although other P-Funk members contributed to their albums). Still, the members of his band performed on many Parliament and Funkadelic albums recorded at the time, and many of Bootsy's songs were co-written or co-produced by Clinton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs) 02:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Either your information about P-Funk is incorrect or our article is, because our article identifies "P-Funk" as a genre that includes musicians who were not part of Parliament or Funkadelic. Either way, that ambiguity argues against retaining Category:P-Funk songs. If Parliament-Funkadelic has albums released under that name, then they should be categorized under that name. Otto4711 12:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:P-Funk songs is roughly analogous to Category:Motown songs - it includes the songs of performers and groups that were nominally distinct but whose recordings involved mostly the same revolving cast of musicians (The Funk Brothers in Motown's case) and are unified by a similar sound and style (the Motown Sound in Motown's case, and George Clinton's productions in the case of P-Funk) distinctive enough that its traits are often conflated into a genre or sub-genre. The main difference between Motown and P-Funk in this respect is that Berry Gordy et al tied this style and its related performers to a single label, Motown, while the members of the P-Funk collective recorded for many different labels. The somewhat sloppily assembled list of "followers" in the P-Funk article are not claimed to be part of the P-Funk collective, just to have made music influenced by the style of the P-Funk groups. I have made some changes to the opening paragraph of the article to try and highlight the performer/repertoire/style overlap in the term's use. InnocuousPseudonym 18:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Neither P-Funk and Parliament-Funkadelic are particularly good articles, but Parliament-Funkadelic is 100% correct when it refers to "a burgeoning P-Funk family, which multiplied in the late seventies, with the building swarm of musicians recording albums released under a multitude of names", "Hip Hop music began to extensively sample P-Funk music", "the P-Funk story", "P-Funk albums", "P Funk fans", "modern day P-Funk", "the P Funk All Stars", "P-Funk's fortunes", "new P Funk group", "P-funk studio albums", "Morrison joined P-Funk", "guitarist for P-Funk", "played with P-Funk", "P Funk live shows", etc., all of which use P-Funk as a synonym for Parliament-Funkadelic.

Related articles include List of P-Funk members, Live: P-Funk Earth Tour, P-Funk Earth Tour, P-Funk Mothership, and P-Funk mythology. If P-Funk is a genre, which I've never heard before reading it at Wikipedia (and I'm a 30-year P-Funk fan), it's named for the band. Every one of the P-Funk#Key P-Funk bands and musicians were members of the Parliament-Funkadelic musical collective, and until the band began to fall apart in the early 1980s they played on one another's "solo" albums. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand the issue here of P-Funk being the umbrella term for this aggregation of musicians who performed and recorded in varying combinations under several different names. However, I don't think all their songs should be folded into a single category in the Songs by artist convention, just as the contents of Category:Parliament albums and Category:Funkadelic albums don't deserve to be merged. On record the bands had distinct discographies and repertoires, even if they mixed them up some in live performance. It is better for the categories to represent this accurately. InnocuousPseudonym 03:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep for Category:P-Funk, which wasn't supposed to be on the chopping block here anyway. InnocuousPseudonym 01:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. No matter how many songs an artist has, those songs are to be categorized by the artist's name. Bootsy Collins' Bootzilla is not a P-Funk song, it's a Bootsy Collins song.--Mike Selinker 02:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Okay then. InnocuousPseudonym 16:21, 27 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 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, redirect. Kbdank71 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Counselling to Category:Counseling

Nominator's rationale: Merge, duplicate. See also: Category talk:Counselling. --Alksub 23:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. No need for two categories, but since there the US and the UK apparently use difft spellings, a redirect is useful to avoid the inevitable recreation of the category by editors unfamiliar with the US spelling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 26 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 above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep and rename to Category:LGBT Republicans (United States). While the arguments put forth by Black Falcon and Rich Uncle are compelling to an extent and cite guidelines and POV party issues, I cannot also ignore that practically everyone else supported a keep and rename. Good arguments on both sides, but consensus was weighed in favor of keeping.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Gay Republicans (United States) into Category:Republicans (United States)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation in the form of a non-notable intersection by nationality, sexual preference, and political affiliation. I am aware of the US Republican Party's stance on homosexuality, but the fact is that their position (or a more extreme one) is shared by most non-European political parties. Since all of the members of this category already appear in at least one other subcategory of Category:LGBT people, only a merge to Category:Republicans (United States) is necessary. If kept, the category should be renamed to Category:LGBT Republicans (United States). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. It is a non-notable intersection. Just because a class of person is statistically less likely to be a member of a group than someone of a different class is not a good reason to have a category for it. E.g., we don't have Category:African American Republicans (United States), nor should we. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and rename to Category:LGBT Republicans (United States) - To call this category a "Non-notable intersection" is perverse reasoning which flies in the face of common sense. Of course it's notable -- and worthy of noting -- when an LGBT person belongs to a Western political party whose stance on homosexuality is utterly antithetical to their very existence. Why on earth would we want to expunge this category from Wikipedia, thereby depriving readers of this valuable information? Just because you can reference a guideline in support of deletion doesn't make it mandatory. What IS mandatory is to consider the facts and context for the specific category. In this case, it seems to me, those facts argue for retention. Cgingold 00:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The basis for my nomination is not just the fact that the guideline mentions "by sexual preference" categories as possible overcategorisation. However, this is a triple-intersection (of sexual preference, nationality, and political party affiliation) and I don't see what's special about LGBT Republicans as opposed to LGBT members of any other socially conservative (by Western standards) political party. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's entirely possible that there are other Western political parties which are equally antagonistic to LGBT people and which, nonetheless, have LGBT members notable enough to have articles. However, from my knowledge of the European political scene, such parties would most likely be on the fringe, as the mainstream conservative parties that I'm familiar with (Tories/UK, CDP/Germany, etc.) are NOT, in fact, equivalent to the Republican party in their views on LGBT issues. However, if there are, in fact, strongly anti-LGBT parties with sizeable contingents of notable LGBT members, then analagous categories may well be warranted. The same rationale would also apply, for example, to Neo-Nazi parties with significant numbers of notable Jewish members -- inconceivable, to be sure, but for hypothetical purposes, I think it illustrates my point very nicely. Cgingold 01:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've given me something to think about, although I'm not entirely convinced. Most MPs are notable and most political parties in the world are not exactly supportive of LGBT rights (and certainly the absolute majority of socially conservative political parties). I suppose part of it hinges on one's perspective. In the context of only North America and western Europe, the US Republican party is very conservative when it comes to LGBT issues; in a broader international context, it's less so. Perhaps the category ought to be listified? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I generally don't see lists as a replacement for categories. I thoroughly agree with the guideline re categories & lists, which says "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the other." and "One should not be deleted in favor of the other." Moreover, Lists seem to be a favorite target for deletion themselves. In fact, the article List of African American Republicans -- of all things! -- is at AFD at this very moment. So, I just don't see that as an acceptable solution. Cgingold 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the Republican Party's stance on homosexuality is "utterly antithetical to the[] very existence" of LGBT people is slightly POV, isn't it? There are certainly gay Republicans that would argue that they are comfortable with the Party's stance on homosexuality. If we allow this category to remain based on these arguments, can we create Category:African American Republicans (United States) on the grounds that an editor subjectively believes that the Republican Party's stance on race relations or affirmative action is "utterly antithetical to the very existence" of black people in America? Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my phrasing was slightly POV, but this is just a discussion after all, not the text of an article. The point remains that it is pretty extraordinary for LGBT people to be members of a political party whose stance vis-a-vis LGBT issues has been shaped by people who literally consider homosexuality an abomination.

As for your other point, although the vast majority of African Americans might well agree with that statement, the critical distinction for purposes of this discussion is that the GOP has not singled them out for vituperation or denial of equal rights -- as they have done for LGBT people. Cgingold 03:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this is all POV interpretation. Arguing that opposition to same-sex marriage is denying equal rights is one POV. Others see it differently. Similarly, opposition to affirmative action could be seen, under one POV, as singling out African Americans, though another POV would not see it that way. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep OCAT by intersection is excepted if a sourced NPOV encyclopedic article can be written about the intersection, as in Gay Republicans, which redirects to Log Cabin Republicans, etc. demonstrates such an article can be written. Carlossuarez46 03:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Log Cabin Republicans article is about a particular organisation, which might justify Category:Log Cabin Republicans, but not this one, I think. I also want to clarify one point: are you suggesting that the category be kept as is or after it is renamed to Category:LGBT Republicans (United States)? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that all the notable LGBT Republicans are members of the Log Cabin Republicans, and it seems unhelpful to limit the category to members of a particular organised group. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Carlossuarez46. This is indeed a notable intersection, precisely because of the party's hostility to LGBT rights. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oops! changing my !vote to Keep and rename to Category:LGBT Republicans (United States) per Cgingold. Carlossuarez46 is right to say keep, but the intersection should be more broadly drawn, to align with our general practice of grouping LGBT people and issues together. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & preferably rename, per Cgingold et al. This is certainly a notable intersection, endlessly written about by Andrew Sullivan and others. Johnbod 13:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's a notable intersection but IMO is probably better handled as a list, linked from relevant articles on Log Cabin Republicans and so on. Any gay person whose Republicanism is a sufficient part of her/his identity that it is discussed in their article would be able to link to the article there. --lquilter 15:34, 30 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 above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was listify and delete. Kbdank71 14:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Meritorious Service Medal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by award or honor. Otto4711 22:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - low level award, one level above Commendation Medal.--Nobunaga24 23:01, 25 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 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. Kbdank71 14:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:People who researched the Children of God into Category:Researchers of cults and new religious movements

Overcategorisation on the basis of a non-defining or trivial characteristic. Few researchers limit their attention to only one organisation and having separate categories for each of the thousands of cults and religious movements in existence would hamper navigation. If it's desirable to somehow connect these people with Children of God, their relevant publications should be noted in a "Further reading" section of the article Children of God. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. This is rather similar to a performers by performance category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge; BrownHairedGirl is exactly right in comparison: "X by specific topic of X" is not a useful category format. --lquilter 15:36, 30 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 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:Pedestrian circumnavigators of the globe. Some change is recommended by everyone, and this name gains the most momentum in the discussion.--Mike Selinker 13:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have walked or run around the world or are attempting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as a narrow intersection or rename to something shorter. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename - This is certainly a highly noteworthy achievement if accomplished (or nearly accomplished), and constitutes a valid category -- but the name is indeed a bit of a problem. First, drop the part about "attempting", and wait until the results are in -- if they make it, or at least come close, then they can be added to the category. For sheer succinctness, you can't beat Category:Ambulatory circumnavigation (or perhaps, Category:Ambulatory circumnavigators) -- but that may just be too succinct. On the other hand, if we can't come up with anything better, I suppose we could make do with Category:People who have walked or run around the world. Cgingold 23:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is succint; kudos for coming up with it. I support renaming to your proposed title, Category:Ambulatory circumnavigators. I want to avoid the phrase "around the world" since completion of a full circle around the globe without swimming requires (a) traveling on an object that can fly, float, or dive, or (b) use of a significant number of underwater breathing tanks ... or a really, really, really deep breath ... and a diving suit that can protect its wearer from sustained exposure to pressures in excess of 300 atmospheres and temperatures in the 0–3 °C range. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! And, well, thanks for your support.... I was 90% serious when I proposed that name, but I wasn't sure if it would fly, er, I mean walk. My only concern is whether the average reader will understand what it's referring to. I'm also thinking that we might want to have a parent category for other notable circumnavigators (many are named in the article Circumnavigation). Do you think Category:Circumnavigators (and probable sub-cats) will hold up? (By the way, I went ahead and added Category:Walking as a parent cat for the one we're discussing.) Cgingold 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Circumnavigators of the globe could serve as a parent category for various types of circumnavigators. Of course, if that is to be the parent, the nominated category should be renamed to Category:Ambulatory circumnavigators of the globe for consistency (and also clarity, I suppose). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a feat of the feet, but not defining. And attempting...? like in this very moment? Or gave up after realizing the magnitude of the challenge. Carlossuarez46 03:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably the former, as in 'currently attempting'. However, since these treks can take more than a decade, who knows ... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Category:Circumnavigators on foot, and restrict to those who have actually done it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the new title would still need to state exactly what they circumnavigated (i.e. "circumnavigators of the globe") although, to be honest, Category:Ambulatory circumnavigators of the globe seems to be a clearer title. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article circumnavigation does acknowledge the other uses, but addresses only the circumnavigation of the globe, and so far as I can see that accords with normal usage, so it seems to me that the " of the globe" is an unnecessary disambiguation. I also tend to favour Plain English, and "on foot" seems to me to have the same meaning as "ambulatory" while being more easily understood. I regularly hear people referring to things done "on foot", but I have never heard the word "ambulatory" used in ordinary conversation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've just come up with another possible name. How about Category:Pedestrian circumnavigators? "Pedestrian" refers to both walking and running, and it's a word that everybody knows. Can't believe I didn't think of this before. Cgingold 13:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's my take: I still prefer Category:Circumnavigators on foot, because it's unambiguous. "Pedestrian" also means dull or slow, but it's better than "ambulatory" (which sounds like an emergency vehicle for carrying British Conservatives to hospital). All of these ideas are much better than the current convoluted name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • BHG, in that case, do you think Category:Circumnavigators of the globe ought also to be renamed? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • On balance, I think not. It's not too long as a category name, so the "of the globe" clarification is not intrusive. It should be a parent of this one, but I think that it needs attention: it's currently focused on explorers like Cook, Drake and Magellan, but there should be some category for the circumnavigating yachtsmen, particularly the single-handers such as Chay Blyth, Joshua Slocum, Ellen MacArthur, Donald Crowhurst and Robin Knox-Johnston. I'm inclined to think they are a different bunch to the likes of Cook and Drake, and should be in a sub-category of Category:Circumnavigators of the globe, possibly called Category:Single-handed circumnavigating sailors, which should also be a subcat of Category:Single-handed sailors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is interesting for example to find more of these people if one has stumbled into an article about one of them. Possibly rename, even if I think the name is OK, and I don't find any better title for now. -- BIL 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. How about Category:People who have circumnavigated the globe on foot? It is somewhat lengthy, but it's also relatively clear and constitutes an improvement on the current title. My first choice is Category:Pedestrian circumnavigators of the globe (per Cgingold's suggestion above), but this seems an acceptable alternative. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and restrict to completed walks, per several above - i'll go with concensus on the name, with preference for Category:Pedestrian circumnavigators of the globe. Johnbod 13:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm going to lock in my vote for Category:Pedestrian circumnavigators of the globe. I think the additional clarity justifies the slightly longer name. Cgingold 13:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Category:Pedestrian circumnavigators of the globe per Cgingold and Johnbod. RandomCritic 13:32, 1 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 speedy delete per CSD G7 (author-requested deletion). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czech Republic motorcycle racers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Made in error Hammer1980·^talk 22:01, 25 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 above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Listify and then delete both - jc37 12:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Opponents of Alaska statehood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Proponents of Alaska statehood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as overcategorisation on the basis of opinions about a question or issue. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- These categories are not about personal preferences, but rather about identifying the contestants in the historical struggle over Alaska statehood which took place principally in the 1940s and 50s and culminated with Alaska's admission into the union in 1959. The guideline on Overcategorization advises to "avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions" but makes a distinction "between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic". The people classified under these headings were historical agents in deciding this question, not just people with varying points of view. For many on the list, their involvement with the question of Alaska statehood is key to their historical significance. -- Shunpiker 22:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These people may be significant in the context of Alaska statehood, but Alaska statehood is generally not significant in the context of these people (e.g. Frank Church (Idaho senator), Nathan Farragut Twining (air force general), Hugh A. Butler (Nebraska senator)). Most of the people in the categories are notable for things other than their involvement in the sisue of Alaska statehood. Perhaps this information could somehow be listified? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the relative importance of the struggle for Alaska statehood varies from person to person on this list, and I am not opposed to listifying -- I just don't want to lose the collective record of who all was involved. I think it's an encyclopedic matter. As far as the people you mentioned, I can't speak to the significance of Alaska statehood in respect to their other accomplishments, but they were each key players in the controversy itself: Senator Frank Church was the congressional sponsor of the Alaska Statehood Act. Nathan F. Twining headed Alaska's Air Command in the wake of the Japanese invasion of Alaska and the emerging Cold War. It was from this position that testified to congress on behalf of statehood. Hugh Butler was a major congressional opponent of Alaska statehood, and blocked a statehood bill from reaching the floor. The University of Alaska's "Who's Who" of Alaska Statehood was my source for many of the names. -- Shunpiker 23:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can certainly understand your desire to preserve the information in some form. If you are not adverse to the idea of a list, what would you suggest as a title? Or, perhaps a "Notable people" section in the Alaska Statehood Act article – assuming, of course, that proponents of Alaska statehood supported the Act and opponents opposed it – would suffice? A detailed treatment of the controversy and people involved would be ideal, perhaps approximating Hawaii Admission Act#Debate and controversy, but that would require a more substantial effort. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete people by opinion, an article on the Alaska statehood debate would identify all the main players. If this is kept we could have by precedent dozens of others, and then editors absorbed by the history of many more notable controversies would want categories for the players in each. Let's nip this in the bud. Carlossuarez46 03:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as categorisation by opinion. Listify if anyone wants to do the work, because a list can be expanded to include some indication of the nuances of a person's stance (including changes of position), which a category cannot do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 26 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 above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, empty. Kbdank71 17:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Graphical User Interfaces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as duplicate of Category:Graphical user interface. --Alksub 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse Merge since categories are generally plural. Vegaswikian 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate: generally, plural categories are for instances (e.g. Category:Operas), while non-plural categories are for articles about the topic (e.g. Category:Opera). In this case, we have a mix of both in Category:Graphical user interface. Articles and subcategories about individual GUIs should be moved to the new category, but everything else should be left in the existing category. Xtifr _tälk 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate per Xtifr. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate Make it a sub-category for Graphical User Interface.--Dojarca 08:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, populate, and rename to "Category:Graphical user interfaces". Will help thin out category:GUI in a very useful way. --lquilter 15:38, 30 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 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. Kbdank71 17:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:GLBT Activists to Category:LGBT rights activists

Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate. --Alksub 20:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom as duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:10, 26 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 above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was listify and delete. Kbdank71 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soldier's Medal recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by award or honor. Otto4711 19:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - significant award, highest non-combat award for heroism in US Army, rarely awarded.--Nobunaga24 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Listification is the obvious solution. Allowing this category could quickly lead down the slippery slope to permitting Category:Third grade math gold star recipients from Catholic schools in Arkansas. No offence to the recipients of this medal. Snocrates 08:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course. My God, maybe next we will have something as stupid as Category:Winners of the United States Championship for amateur boxers or Category:Academy Honorary Award recipients. Don't want to head down that slippery slope of including categories for high level awards 'cause next thing you know, there will be categories for completely insignificant awards pertainng to elementary school academic achievement.--Nobunaga24 22:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & listify - If it's rarely awarded a list will work great. Moreover a list will provide better navigation (by year not just by name) and richer links to the recipients' entries -- this may be the primary source of notability for some recipients. It will also permit inclusion of recipients who do not meet notability. --lquilter 15:40, 30 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 above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was listify and delete. Kbdank71 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Air Medal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by award or honor. Otto4711 19:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - low level award, on par with the Meritorious Service Medal, except for actions involving aerial flight. While you're at it, nominate Category:Recipients of the Meritorious Service Medal - it's one step above the Commendation Medal. --Nobunaga24 22:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Air Medal is actually on par with the Bronze Star Medal, which was created as the ground troops' answer to the Air Medal. If there's a category for Bronze Star recipients, then why can't there be one for Air Medal recipients? --ItemCo16527 08:18, 26 September 2007

There probably shouldn't be a category for Bronze Star recipients - without a "V" device, it's an "atta-boy" award. The medal has been so de-valued since the Vietnam War (the Bronze Star, that is) that it's a meaningless award - an achievement medal for being in theater. I know the public perception is that it's only given for valor, but that just isn't the case. The Army's own statistics (and I wish I remembered the URL - it was on the perscom.mil site, but I remember it quite clearly) said that 30,000 soldiers were awarded the Bronze Star in the three years of the Korean War. By contrast, in Desert Storm, 100 hours of combat, 27,000 Bronze Stars were awarded - but only 900 had the "V" device.--Nobunaga24 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had no idea that many BSM's were awarded for Desert Storm. Awards of the BSM really have gotten to the point of being ridiculous these days. While I do agree with your logic, I think both categories should be kept, as I feel they provide a valuable research aid for medal collectors, historians, or people looking to see who has been awarded particular decorations (i.e. going to the Air Medal page, clicking on the recipients link, and scrolling through to find that Jimmy Stewart, Andy Rooney, Clark Gable, and John Ford are all awardees of the medal, and from there doing further research into their military service). I definitely think that we shouldn't add categories for the Commendation, Achievement, and Good Conduct medals as those are way too common, and very liberally awarded. --ItemCo16527 01:55, 27 September 2007

• (i.e. going to the Air Medal page, clicking on the recipients link, and scrolling through to find that Jimmy Stewart, Andy Rooney, Clark Gable, and John Ford are all awardees of the medal, and from there doing further research into their military service) - This is a good argument for listification rather than categorization. Otto4711 18:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see where you are coming from. In regards to that, I think it might be useful, but I guess the question comes down to "how far down the order of precedence chart do we want to go before we say it is too non-definitive to warrant a category?" I dont think there is any question that we don't want a category for the Army Commendation Medal, and there is no question about whether we should delete the category for the Distinguished Service Cross; obviously it should stay. The mid-level awards are tricky - Air Medal, Bronze Star, MSM - all worn with pride by most people who have earned them, but a) are they defining awards, do they some how set apart those who have earned them, and b) are the actions that warrant these awards notable? I knew a guy, no joke, received a BSM for driving the battalion commander around in Kuwait and Iraq before the insurgency got into full swing. I had a friend receive a BSM for the Iraq War who never set foot in Iraq...at all. I might change my vote to no vote, but I have to mull it over for a while.--[[User:Nobunaga24|No

• Delete per nom. Listification is the obvious solution. Allowing this category could quickly lead down the slippery slope to permitting Category:Third grade math gold star recipients from Catholic schools in Arkansas. No offence to the recipients of this medal. bunaga24]] 06:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete & listify - A list will provide better navigation (by year, engagement, theater, etc.; not just by name) and more links to the recipients' entries -- this may be a primary source of notability for some recipients. It will also permit inclusion of recipients who do not meet notability. --lquilter 15:42, 30 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 above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep - Though it sounds like it could use a rename for clarity, there wasn't enough discussion below about what the target name should be. Feel free to renominate for renaming. - jc37 12:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IP addresses used for vandalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Literally millions of IP addresses have been used for vandalism, and thousands more will be tomorrow. Listing a small subset of them in a category accomplishes precisely nothing. This category is:

• Not even remotely near complete, and never will be
• Unworkably large
• Utterly useless

– 86.144.56.144 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Use of IP addresses changes over time and it would not be appropriate to permanently categorize specific addresses as the resident of vandals, even if it were possible to classify all of them, which it probably is not. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I must say, this is a fairly puzzling category, as most IPs that have edited Wikipedia have probably vandalized. The nominator is absolutely correct; it doesn't really help anything. The Evil Spartan 23:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article would almost literally end up infinite in size; it would be like having an article listing single snowflakes. HalfShadow 02:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a known bot that might use this category to double check revisions from these IPs? From a Human point of view this category is probably useless for the reasons you quoted. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 13:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment without !vote: User:HBC AIV helperbot3 just used this category on the WP:AIV page for marking IP categories. That's how I got here. Royalbroil 16:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The HBC helperbots do list this category, but they also list others, including Category:Shared IP addresses, which I generally consider to be more important information. I'm pretty much indifferent to this category; the small uses it has are overshadowed and overlapped by more inclusive and widely useful categories (and block logs), which brings up the question of whether it's worth the maintenance effort... not to mention, how might I feel, as a new user, if I were tagged as a vandal before I even started editing? – Luna Santin (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, leaning towards deleteno real view now AFAICT, the category is populated by ((Repeat vandal)) rather than the usual user warning templates (((uw-vandalism3)) etc), so it'll only be applied to IPs with egregious histories of vandalism. But, in such cases, the talk page (and / or the edit history) will be full of vandalism warnings and the block log will be rather less than empty, so is such a category necessary to make the point still further? However, I'll defer to admins at AIV on how useful this is for them (I left a message on the AIV talk page yesterday to highlight this discussion), and to those who know such things about whether the category is used by bots for other purposes than flagging reports at AIV. Bencherlite^Talk 21:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Related changes can be a useful tool to make a check on recent warnings. A bot could even take a closer look at contributions in question Agathoclea 08:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a useful category to the bots, in that it identifies IPs that have been tagged with a pretty severe template (Repeat vandal)--which gives us a quick overview in the listing at WP:AIV. Addressing Luna Santin's concern, the sequence of warnings and boxes on the top of the talk page would cause far more distress to a new user than being assigned into a category. If the wording is an issue, I can support a rename to Category:IP addresses used to commit repeat vandalism or something less confrontational, but I see merit in the category. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as addressing my above-mentioned concern, that's a good point; the category itself would likely be hidden under a huge heap of warnings, anyway. We could keep going and suggest cleaning out old warnings, periodically (perhaps ironically, if a bot were to do so, it would probably find this category useful...), but that sort of in-depth proposal might be beyond the scope of this discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per C.Fred. Not to mention it's a good thing to know who the ling term vandals are, you know when to revert automatically. And to cut down on size, maybe IPs who appear to be gone could be removed from the category. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:16, 28 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 above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete g7 per creator's consent, below. NawlinWiki 16:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Speciesist articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Very bad idea. Far too POV. Rmhermen 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vague, subjective, inadequately defined category. Doczilla 05:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Objection retracted. -- Librarianofages 06:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subjective category that will encourage POV categorization. No need to wait 5 days as the results are fairly predictable. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 09:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete per creator's agreement above, and category tagged accordingly. Bencherlite^Talk 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The name chosen for this category strikes me as ridiculously POV. And the definition is so garbled that I'm still struggling to understand what the intended purpose of the category is supposed to be. I can't be sure, but between the name and the "definition", it seems as though it was created in order to single out articles that don't meet Librarianofages' approval because they apparently don't articulate the notion that the subjects they address are forms or manifestations of speciesism. I toyed with the idea of renaming to Category:Speciesism -- which could potentially be a valid category, if there were articles to populate it. But the articles that are currently in the category we're discussing would not belong in that hypothetical category -- at the most, they could be linked to from the article on Speciesism as examples thereof. Cgingold 12:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete — Category is sufficiently broad to encompass every single species of animal or plant used for food. Hence, the category is essentially synonymous with Category:Foods. The primary contributor recently has signalled agreement with the speedy deletion of this category. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per vague. Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb} 16:06, 25 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 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. Kbdank71 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Washington athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Washington sportspeople, see Athletics (track and field), Category:American track and field athletes. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - Supporting statement sufficient. Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb} 16:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Aitch Eye 10:12, 27 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 above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Wilson High School to Category:Wilson Classical High School alumni. THere wasn't enough of a consensus to delete. Feel free to nominate Category:People by high school in the United States and its subcats as a separate discussion. - jc37 12:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wilson High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Wilson High School alumni, convention of Category:People by high school in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-defining. Otto4711 03:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per empty. Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb} 16:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, unless we want to delete all of Category:People by high school in the United States. LeSnail 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (1) The category isn't empty at present, Onnaghar: Troy Cory is there. (2) Wilson High School, included in the category text, is a dab page. (3) If, as the category text says, this is the Wilson High School in Long Beach, then the appropriate main article is Wilson Classical High School - although the school sometimes drops the "Classical" and sometimes doesn't, just to be helpful! (4) None of the other schools mentioned at Wilson High School include "Classical" in their article titles. (5) The article lists 14 names of people with Wikipedia articles in a variety of fields who attended the high school, which is enough (I think) to justify retention, assuming decent sources exist for such names etc etc. (6) Per LeSnail, and per my previous point, there seems no particular reason to delete this sub-category alone out of the parent category. (7) Therefore Keep, rename to Category:Wilson Classical High School alumni to match main article and disambiguate, and thereafter populate. NB If Category:Wilson High School (Long Beach, California) alumni was thought to be better, I'd go with that too. Bencherlite^Talk 21:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Arguments like "if you delete this you'll have to delete everything like it" really ought to cut no ice. We do not have an institutionalized Person by high school categorization structure in place and even if we did that doesn't necessarily mean that this particular category should stand. We deleted a category for Troy High School alumni not too long ago despite its being part of this parent cat. The question is not whether there are other similar categories, it's whether this particular category should exist. As it stands, there is one article in it that unless I'm missing it doesn't even mention this high school, so not only does the article not support inclusion in the category but it raises questions as to whether this person's high school is in any way defining of him. I honestly have some question as to whether anyone's high school, unless it's maybe something like the High School for the Performing Arts, defines them but that's a debate for another day. Otto4711 19:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's to be a CFD on Category:People by high school in the United States, let's have that discussion. However, my view is that getting rid of the parent category sub-category by sub-category isn't a helpful way of progressing. I can see that not every US high school has an alumni category, but that is as consistent with a failure to populate such a parent category as it is with it being a "bad idea" or a breach of a guideline/policy. Is there, in fact, a consensus somewhere (not mentioned so far in this discussion, I note) that high school generally is not worth categorizing? An assertion that it's "non-defining" doesn't take matters much further forward. "If something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely not a defining characteristic" doesn't seem to me to include somebody's high school. I can see from this discussion that there are differing views on the matter, but I have no particular axe to grind either way (wrong side of the pond for me, although I can see that it would have implications for Category:People by school in England to name but one). Incidentally, I've gone through the names mentioned in the article and "What links here" and added to the category all those whose articles currently mention their attendance at this high school. There are still some other names in the main school article that aren't included in the category, since their articles don't mention the high school (and I'm not so fussed about things that I'm going to hunt down sources for those names). But at least there are some more names in there for people to consider. Bencherlite^Talk 23:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Otto as overcategorisation on the basis of a non-defining or trivial characteristic. I would also support the deletion of the remainder Category:People by high school in the United States, but that's something for a different discussion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wilson Classical High School alumni per Bencherlite. Although I still support the deletion of "by high school" categories, I find Bencherlite's arguments above and below to be quite convincing now that the category is populated. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto4711 as overcategorization. Comment in response to Bencherlite: A category-structure discussion would be useful, but individual subcategory-by-subcategory discussions are *also* useful. They provide specific, detailed examples that can be used in the category-structure discussion. (Much like lower court decisions provide specific instances and more detailed thinking-through for "supreme court" reviews.) --lquilter 15:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply A sub-category level discussion along the lines of delete because "high school attended" is generally trivial information is, in fact, a category-level discussion issue. Whilst I accept the potential benefit of discussions at this level, I have yet to see anything "specific" to this particular category being given as a reason to delete it. Why is this particular high school trivial, either in comparison to others who "deserve" categories, or in absolute terms? I note that initial discussion proceeded with nobody even noticing that the high school in question was ambiguous, or realising that there were several more valid names to include than just the one that was there. I would have thought that somebody's high school is an important piece of information that ought to be included in an article and so is suitable for a category, and nobody's explained why that opinion is invalid as yet. I also think that the size of this category, as it presently stands, is sufficient to show that this particular high school is notable in terms of alumni on Wikipedia and so merits a category to hold their articles. Note a previous related discussion with no "delete" votes at all, even from Otto - why the difference between English and American schools? I'm just curious, that's all... Bencherlite^Talk 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if the decision is keep -- then it needs to be renamed to distinguish. That said, I don't see anything in the articles of the people included that indicate that attendance here was critical to their lives or careers. A few people have it mentioned, but only for two that I saw did it look significant (high school athletes). Other Wilson HS notes in bios look like information of a trivial nature to me, added in by local HS fan or fans. For a comparison I might consider, for example, Stuyvesant High School; it regularly shows up in people's bios as a prestige marker as well as something particularly significant in their lives. --lquilter 20:21, 30 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.