< August 8 August 10 >

August 9

Category:Spanish freemasonry

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete (it is empty). Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Spanish freemasonry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant (and misformatted) category. There was only one article in the cat, and it was only a one-line dicdef that didn't assert notability. No real potential for growth. If for some reason this is kept, it needs to be renamed to Category:Freemasonry in Spain anyway. MSJapan (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Grand Lodge of Spain

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Grand Lodge of Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The GL itself already has an article, and there's very little chance for growth as a cat. The only other article is literally one line and shows no assertion of notability. MSJapan (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Subcategories of Category:Major League Baseball players by position

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Makes sense based on naming conventions, and aligns itself with the parent category. Rename all. Wizardman 22:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed José Canseco shouldn't be in the Major League Baseball pitchers category based on one relief appearance in 1993, but a clear standard for number of game appearances at a position should be set to avoid confusion and arguments. A full season, 162 games seems a logical point. Hardnfast (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Grand Orient of Belgium

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Grand Orient of Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect use of cat - it is being used to categorize members of lodges under the Grand Orient. They were not necessarily members of the Gtrand Orient directly, and many of them were "footnote Freemasons", meaning it's a trivial aside rather than a focal point of their lives. MSJapan (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful category that could be expanded when the systematic bias towards Anglo-Saxon freemasonry is overcome. JASpencer (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Zagreb Crisis mayor nominees

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Zagreb Crisis mayor nominees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very limited category tied to a particular event - overcategorization per WP:OC#SMALL. GregorB (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be expanded in the future, since Zagreb Crisis is finished. How many nominees were there in total? Five? That's less than husbands of Elizabeth Taylor. Even if Category:Zagreb Crisis existed (and it doesn't), the mayor nominees category would be an overcategorization per WP:OC#SMALL. GregorB (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:2008 Terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: upmerge x 3 (manually). Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Category:2008 Terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka to Category:2008 in Sri Lanka and Category:Terrorist incidents in 2008 (this will have to be done manually, since the bots at WP:CFD/W don't seem to do double-upmerging)
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be an unnecessarily narrow intersection of location, event type, and year. There is not so much material in either parent category as to require subcategorisation; also, this is the only category of its type I was able to find. If kept, it needs to be renamed to a more standard name. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Buildings in films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Buildings in films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category attempting to create something from nothing, as all the articles are either just about the building itself (and at some time it appeared in a film), or are broad "in popular culture" articles. Ford MF (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any building could end up in a film, in either a significant or insignificant manner, and the category does not establish notability. ie Empire State Building is a large part of King Kong but it's been shown in hundreds, maybe thousands of films as part of the backdrop of the city. Eiffel Tower is often used for film or scene set in France simply to establish location. Would these uses all qualify? Too broad. Rossrs (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently ill-defined. If necessary, it's better to make it into a list. GregorB (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Collectables Records artists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete, partly informed by consensus to delete other similar categories below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Collectables Records artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: According to the article Collectables Records, this is a reissue/repackager label and not an actual recording label. All of the artists in this category are also listed in the article of the label. This category is redundant and tends to imply notability connected to a presumed relationship between the artist and the label which does not exist. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reponse - This is not a record label in the traditional sense of a label or as defined as a record label. No artist signs recording contracts to this label, they do not produce original music and in all cases are not the original producers of the music included. This is a put-together label for purposes of repackaging already recorded products. This is a trivial categorization based on the marketing of some of the musicians' performances for the secondary market. This category follows the same rationales as are in the Category:The Signature Collection deletion discussion below. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Fictional child murderers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional child murderers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete: Vague category, and no criteria for inclusion (is it for children who kill, or people who kill children? both are included); no explanation of why the very few articles here need to be subcatted out of Category:Fictional murderers. Ford MF (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:The Signature Collection

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Signature Collection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Trivial categorization based on the marketing of some of the actors' performances on DVD. Note: another one of this user's recent creations, Category:Comic Icons is listed for deletion below. Ford MF (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Category:Best Of British
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Comic Icons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Comic Icons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - being included in a particular product line of DVD box sets is not defining and adds clutter to already lengthy category lists. Listify if desired. Otto4711 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Box set

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging deleting Category:Box set to Category:Box sets
Nominator's rationale: Merge - obvious duplicate. Otto4711 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion is fine with me. Additionally, I didn't realize that the suggested merge target is a redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:G Funk

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:G Funk to Category:G-funk
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per G-funk. Reverend X (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category: Organised crime in Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: no rename, obviously. — CharlotteWebb 17:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. We should create uniformity in the spelling. For Wikipedia that is American spelling. Stefanomione (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination violates (1) Consistency within articles, (2) Strong national ties to a topic, and (3) Retaining the existing variety.
I further note that Category talk:Films about organized crime in Australia and Category talk:Organized crime in Australia were deleted in back in June. Cheers,  This flag once was red  21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bro' - I'm using Kiwi spelling! ;-)
Cheers,  This flag once was red  01:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Utah Valley State College

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename. UVSC changed its name to Utah Valley University effective July 1 2008, and the main article for the category is now located at the school's new name. Normal naming procedure for US college athletic programs is to omit "College", "University", and the like. Dale Arnett (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Head coaches of Team Norway

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Head coaches of Team Norway to Category:Norway national men's ice hockey team coaches
Nominator's rationale: Although "Team Norway" might be common usage for hockey fans, or perhaps even for Norwegians in general, the name is highly ambiguous — is it their ice hockey team? their ski team? their swimming team? their basketball team? The proposed format complies with standards from Category:Ice hockey coaches. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Sri Lankan terrorists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: procedural close per nominator's request at my talk page. While there has been additional support for deletion, which would normally preclude an early closure, a speedy close is justified by the particular circumstances of this case. The category was discussed at CFD only a few days ago as part of a bulk nomination of all "terrorist" and "terrorism" categories, where it was kept. The validity of including specific articles in the category is currently under discussion at the relevant WikiProject. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sri Lankan terrorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Terrorist is a strictly POV word that is one of the words to avoid in wikipedia. As this is a POV cat and has been used to categorize WP:BLP and violating WP:BLP, this cat should be deleted. Noting that even if it is acceptable to say "x calls Y a terrorist", it is a different scenario to categorize someone (specially a living person) as a terrorist - as is the case with this category. Since this category can be misused, and currently being misused, to violate WP:BLP it should be deleted. Watchdogb (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is that here in wikipedia Terrorist, Extremist, Freedom fighters are considered POV words and specifically listed in the words to avoid list. It is acceptable for the use of the word "Terrorist" provided we establish "x says y is a terrorist". In this case, however, it is a cat that is used to categorize someone a terrorist without properly establishing who is calling whom. Furthermore, categorizing a living person a terrorist violates WP:BLP as it is only one POV that the person is a terrorist and there is, in reality, other opinions like "hero" "freedom fighters" and such exist and to categorize someone a terrorist and not a "hero" "freedom fighter" violates WP:NPOV. Also this is a high risk category that can even be used to degrade any BLP article. Watchdogb (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of other categories of "Terrorists" is not a valid argument as it maybe the case that no one was willing to put these articles for deletion. Also the category specifically asks that someone should be explicitly called a terrorist by WP:RS but this category lists fugitives wanted on terrorism charges as Terrorists. Since most of the persons categorized by category have not been convicted in a court of law, it is evident that the category is currently being misused. Watchdogb (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why dont you go list those articles for deletion too as you did here? If there are any Nobel Peace prize winners like Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat let us remove them but then again are there any like that in this article. Nitraven (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People, read the comments below. They all were just nominated for deletion, discussed at length, and no consensus to delete was reached. That boat's been missed, and the next one won't sail for a little bit of time. See here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
International organizations such as Interpol is not a law enforcement authority to list persons as terrorists, due to their activities. Again Interpol is a inter-governmental organization, its declarations or statement can't be used on wikiproject as "Categories". It should be noted most of the freedom movement leaders branded as terrorists and later they were accepted legendary leaders of the world. A good example is Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela had to fight against the illegal European invaders who occupied his country for a long time and discriminated his own community and the natives as slaves branding him and his colleagues as "Terrorists". The same mistake can't be repeated in the real world once more as well as on wikipedia.Teasereds (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To all of my foreign friends the real reason for the nomination is that our victorious Sri Lankan troops have almost anhilated the LTTE terrorists, with the final battle for the vanni jungles being fought now. Thus disruptive elements among the tamil diASSpora who support the LTTE realise that if international involvement is not bought soon, their dreams of a non existant seperate state will not materialise for the next thousand years. Thus they are attempting to remove evidence of the LTTE's atrocities from this esteemed wiki. Let us not be mistaken, this is the only terrorist organisation which has killed two world leaders and taught bin Laden about suicide bombing.Kerr avon (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a Jaffna kingdom just 400 years ago, so no need to wait for another 1000 years. Sri Lankan Civil War shows more than 70, 000 people died, mostly Tamils by the Sri Lankan Forces and the Indian Forces, so the just two leaders deaths don't make any sense. The claim, LTTE taught bin Laden about suicide bombing, is a "frog in a well" state of the world revolutions.Teasereds (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That only applies to categories that have remained empty for at least four days. Cgingold (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Genocides during World War I

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genocides during World War I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Mais oui -- they're all there already, I should've mentioned that. Cgingold (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Female life peers who are also wives of peers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Female life peers who are also wives of peers to Category:Female life peers also wives of peers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category name is currently not tense-neutral. Some of the people on the list are deceased, so present tense is not appropriate. It is also inappropriate for widows. Please feel free to suggest a better alternative, though. JRawle (Talk) 11:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Boston musical groups

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Boston musical groups to Category:Boston, Massachusetts musical groups
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proper disambiguation. Tim! (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Worcester musical groups

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Worcester musical groups to Category:Worcester, Massachusetts musical groups
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proper disambiguation. Tim! (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Leicester musical groups

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: Withdrawn in favour of more general naming convention. Tim! (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Leicester musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Leicester
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol and Manchester in Category:English musical groups. Tim! (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Hereford Music Scene

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Hereford Music Scene to Category:English musical groups
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Hereford is probably too small to make it a worthwile subdivision along the lines of Category:Musical groups from Birmingham, England. Tim! (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Fictional wombats

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional wombats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is an absurd and useless category, far too specialized and narrow. 24.29.109.139 (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. At least 5. This is enough per precedent, even without invoking the "wider scheme" from WP:OCAT. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am imagining 40 trillion fictional wombats. So at least 40,000,000,000,005 are likely to exist.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Horror films actors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Horror films actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcatting and vague. It's overcatting because many of the actors in the cat right now (like Abbott and Costello, Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, and Patrick Troughton) are much more well-known for things other than horror films. There are the obvious entries like Bela Lugosi and Robert Englund, but some very notable misses (Kane Hodder and Doug Bradley). It's vague because conceivably, every actor who was ever in any role from any horror film should be in this cat, which doesn't make for a useful categorization. We don't have anything like this cat on WP for other film genres, either, so it seems that we simply don't categorize like this. MSJapan (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Category:Songs about masturbation

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: ...delete!!!1!eleven!!(and I'm spent). Kbdank71 13:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs about masturbation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category, possibly OR and POV issues ("Explicitly or not"). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I said it was "awfully narrow for a category" I wasn't commenting on how many articles it would hold. What I meant was that masturbation is a very narrow facet of the wide range of sexual activities and behaviors that might be selected as the basis for categories like this. Should we therefore create a whole array of such categories, so as to cover all of the sexual items that might be mentioned in various songs? [Addendum: Obviously, we would need to start with Category:Songs about seduction, continuing with Category:Songs about foreplay, and eventually, um, climaxing with Category:Songs about orgasm.] And surely many songs would need to have multiple such sex-related categories. As far as I can see, it's just not a workable approach, even if it was restricted to those songs with explicit mentions of masturbation. Cgingold (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And another thing: Shouldn't these be further divided into Category:Songs about male masturbation and Category:Songs about female masturbation? (I could really get off on that one... :) Cgingold (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Garion96 (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.
More