< January 2	January 4 >

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. Kbdank71 18:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film supporting characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by arbitrary inclusion standard. There is no objective criterion as to what constitutes a "supporting" character. As noted on the talk page, the line between a supporting character and a lead character is quite blurry and if fully implemented this category could encompass almost every film character article on Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overly broad subset of Category:Film characters. –Pomte 06:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Noroton (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (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 keep per WP:SNOW.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Violation of No disclaimers in articles. Specifically, the disclaimer "Note: This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic." appears. This category is rightly applied to some articles, e.g., Anti-Defamation League, but it (along with its disclaimer) are applied to articles such as Charles Colson, who responded ambiguously to a question from the President of the United States. The question had clear anti-semitic tones, but the Colson's answer did not. Hence, the need for the disclaimer, which violates WP guidelines. This template should be removed since it has a disclaimer, or it should be regulated so that WP:BLP is not violated. Ra2007 (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This category was peviously discussed for deletion/merge here. Ra2007 (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep and close - this category has been discussed how many times in the last few months? Give it a rest. Additionally, No disclaimers in articles is a guideline (which may be ignored in the name of common sense) and it refers to articles (this being a category). The nominator appears to misunderstand the nature of this category, as s/he seems to believe that it is a template. Otto4711 (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The problem identified above has not been adequately discussed, and this discussion is valid. The spirit (if not the letter) of No disclaimers in articles is violated when this category is added to WP:BLP articles that are tangentially related (and sometimes speciously related) to anti-semitism. Ra2007 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The obvious solution is to restrict this category, which is about the topic of antisemitism, to non-biographical articles. The potential misuse of the category is an argument for vigilance, not deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I agree that Otto4711 (talk · contribs) has restated a reasonable solution. With respect, I thought the d in CFD is for discussion. How do you restrict categories? Thanks. Ra2007 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• With a clear introduction. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep we can copy all the previous arguments to this location if necessary to prove this has been completely discussed and kept. Hmains (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: WP:NDA says no disclaimers in articles not categories. The previous CfD covered this argument and the result was overwhelming keep. This is a clear WP:SNOW candidate. Justin ^chat 04:26, 4 January 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous South Africans called Botha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Again, one of these "last name" categories, see also the other "South Africans called..." nominations I have made. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Kevlar67 (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete LeSnail (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify - the usual way of dealing with people of the same surname is a disambiguation page see Botha. I have not checked if all those in the category are in the list, but suspect not. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous South Africans called Kruger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Why do we need categories by surname? How is it interesting? Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kevlar67 (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. LeSnail (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Famous Brits called Smith. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify - the usual way of dealing with people of the same surname is a disambiguation page see Kruger. In this case, there is slightly more in the existing list. I have not checked if all those in the category are in the list, but suspect not. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note related discussion below for Category:Famous Africans called Kruger. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was relisted on jan 10. Kbdank71 16:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Laguna to Category:Laguna (province)

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency. The article is at Laguna (province) so the category and its sub's nominated below should be as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating to rename:

• Category:Municipalities of Laguna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Municipalities of Laguna (province)
• Category:People from Laguna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:People from Laguna (province)
• Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is there a separate Laguna place that needs a category? If there's another Laguna that needs categorization, I'll support a rename to Category:Laguna, Philippines, but if there's no other place that'll need categorization (the Laguna dab page says this is the only character with the name of "Laguna" per se), I'd rather leave it where it is now. --Howard the Duck 12:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at present, but if we are so sure that Laguna is the place to put the category, the article should be renamed accordingly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd recommend not to do that since Laguna should be a dab page. However, since it makes no sense to create a dab page for categories then I think the present setup for Category:Laguna referring to the Philippine province would be fine, unless another place with a "Laguna" (without other words) name crops up. --Howard the Duck 03:04, 8 January 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French hip hop labels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little or no apparent growth potential. Nominated once previously and closed no consensus despite 2-1 in favor of deletion. Since the previous nomination there has been no expansion of this single-entry category. This is the only hip-hop label by nationality subcategory and is a triple intersection. Otto4711 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Overcategorization, and as per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2008 (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 16:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Winter Asian Games to Category:Asian Winter Games

Nominator's rationale: The articles in the category use a mixture of the naming conventions. However, the Olympic Council of Asia, the governing body of the games, uses the proposed naming convention. JD554 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2008 (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 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ice hockey at the Winter Asian Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category is deprecated. The category Category:Ice hockey at the Asian Winter Games uses the correct naming convention as defined by the Olympic Council of Asia. JD554 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment you moved all the articles from one category to another on Jan3, but they were in the other category on Jan2. This should be a rename request. 70.51.10.115 (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with hindsight I should have done a CfR (which is what I've done for Winter Asian Games above). Sorry --JD554 (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2008 (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 close, there appears nothing to do. Kbdank71 16:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Rio de Janeiro (state) to Category:Rio de Janeiro state

Nominator's rationale: The same function, my fault in old cfd to divide city and state. Matthew_hk tc 11:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming Category:Rio de Janeiro (state) to Category:Rio de Janeiro (city)

The old cat Category:Rio de Janeiro should moved to Category:Rio de Janeiro (city), but they moved to Category:Rio de Janeiro (state). Matthew_hk tc 11:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT is because the Category:Rio de Janeiro contain some but not the majority of the state's article, and i did not know the exist of Category:Rio de Janeiro state. But it now fixed. 203.185.57.72 (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous Africans called Kruger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Why would this be needed? Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 10:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we never categorize by name. Kevlar67 (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete LeSnail (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but listify - a similar nomination for a South African category appears above, and should be dealt with like it.

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

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

The result of the debate was relisted on jan 10. Kbdank71 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sicilian mob bosses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, Category:Sicilian Mafiosi already exist and the Sicilian Mafia is not the mob, which is a term for the American Mafia. Mafia Expert (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This category has not been properly tagged yet. Snocrates 09:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK now? - Mafia Expert (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge all to Category:Animal care and training writers. Kbdank71 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Animal care and training writers
• Category:Animal care and training writers by nationality
• Category:American animal care and training writers
• Category:British animal care and training writers
• Category:Canadian animal care and training writers
• Category:English animal care and training writers
• Delete and listify: Overcategorization. These cats would make good lists, as it could list the authors specialty, number of books written, etc. As it stands now, the categories aren't going to assist someone in finding much of anything, as typically if you are looking for an "animal" author, you'll want to know their specialty (ie, canines, reptiles, etc). Justin ^chat 04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Creator's rationale: This category was created to fill a void, as there didn't seem to be a category for "animal" authors. I feel the categorization is valid, at the very least as a parent category. The specialty categories mentioned (i.e. canines, reptiles, etc.) can be added under this category, so there is much potential for expansion and subcategorization. "Listifying" may have its place in this instance, but a list is not a substitute for a category. Thanks for your consideration.--JustJimDandy (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Expansion is my concern actually. Eventually adding Category:Reptile care and training writers and Category:Canine care and training writers is going to create a bit of a mess, as we'll then have to double cat each writer by their specialty and their nationality. IMHO, that's a bad thing, as it means overcategorizing. This is exactly why a list makes much more sense. We can then include details (such as specialty, nationality, books written, etc). If the list becomes overly large, we can do List of reptile care and training writers and List of canine care and training writers. A list can be an excellent substitute for a category under the right circumstances, and I think these cats are perfect examples. Justin ^chat 18:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:I have seen several categories with an extensive list of subcategories, and it dosen't appear to be a problem. Besides, categories are generally easier to find than lists, as one has to specifically seek out a list, whereas a category is (ideally, at least) found on the page of subject who meets its criteria. How can we make readers aware of the lists, other than linking to them under a "See Also" heading on the bio pages of those who fall under the particular category? In my view, if we're going to do this, we may as well have categories, a little less space on the page and just as easy to navigate. As for the lists becoming overly large, while recognizing the potential for vast expansion, one can see that the current listings are actually quite small, as this is a very specialized category. I don't foresee the lists becoming excessive in size, but would be willing to revisit this discussion should it apparently start heading that way. I'm also open to ideas for renaming or recategorizing if it would be helpful.--JustJimDandy (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Animal care and training writers, but Delete all subcats. This is a perfectly valid category, and deletion would leave a hole in the topical sub-cats of non-fiction writers. Lists could be valuable, but aren't a substitute for the category. The sub-cats by nationality, however, are excessive categorization, and impede navigation rather than facilitating it. Cgingold (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep top level and deleted the sub cats per Cgingold - way overkill to cat by nationality here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments above, and those of Cgingold and Carlossuarez46. However, I have to question why sub-categorizing by nationality is problematic, since it is a common practice and within the guidelines for categorization of individuals.--JustJimDandy (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/rename per nom. Kbdank71 18:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Land birds of the Caribbean to Category:Birds of the Caribbean

Category:Land birds of Barbados to Category:Birds of Barbados

Propose renaming Category:Land Birds of the Lesser Antilles to Category:Birds of the Lesser Antilles

Category:Land birds of Anguilla to Category:Birds of the Anguilla

Category:Land birds of Antigua and Barbuda to Category:Birds of Antigua and Barbuda

Category:Land Birds of Aruba to Category:Birds of Aruba

Category:Land Birds of Bonaire to Category:Birds of Bonaire

Category:Land Birds of Curaçao to Category:Birds of Curaçao

Category:Land birds of Dominica to Category:Birds of Dominica

Category:Land birds of Grenada to Category:Birds of Grenada

Category:Land Birds of Guadeloupe to Category:Birds of Guadeloupe

Category:Land Birds of Martinique to Category:Birds of Martinique

Category:Land Birds of Montserrat to Category:Birds of Montserrat

Category:Land Birds of the Netherlands Antilles to Category:Birds of the Netherlands Antilles

Category:Land Birds of Saint Kitts and Nevis to Category:Birds of Saint Kitts and Nevis

Category:Land Birds of Saint Lucia to Category:Birds of Saint Lucia

Category:Land Birds of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to Category:Birds of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Category:Land Birds of Trinidad and Tobago to Category:Birds of Trinidad and Tobago

Nominator's rationale: "Land birds" is unnecessary and is not used in any other bird categories except the first, which is the parent category, and some of the subcategories of it, which are listed. I don't think this is an accepted naming format for birds of island countries, because none of the other island countries in the world seem to have a category for "land birds" as opposed to simply "birds". (If, for whatever reason, "Land" is actually kept for any of the categories, the caps on "Birds" on a number of the categories should be changed to lowercase.) Snocrates 03:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The contrast is of course with category:Seabirds. I looked at several articles, and most seabirds are not categorised geographically (some exceptions being California Least Tern and Northern Fulmar). If you take out "Land" from the national categories, then seabirds might end up being placed in an excessive number of categories according to where they nest. I wonder if it might be better to add "Land" to all the other categories of birds by nation. Need advice - I've left a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the note in WP:BIRD - I'd suggest supporting the move. The term landbird is mostly used, (as above in fact) in island situations where you wish to distinguish between the two types in situations where seabirds might be a dominant aspect of the avifauna and everything else (or maybe waders). category:Seabirds, by the way, is only generally used for the families or genera, not individual species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Reading through there seems to be some divergence of opinion on what constitutes a land bird anyway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2008 (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 18:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football in Saint Martin (Netherlands) to Category:Football in Sint Maarten

Category:Saint Martin (Netherlands) football competitions to Category:Sint Maarten football competitions

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Island of Saint Martin is divided between France (Saint Martin (France)) and the Netherlands (Sint Maarten). These are the only categories that uses "Saint Martin (Netherlands)" as opposed to "Sint Maarten". See Category:Sint Maarten. Saint Martin (Netherlands) redirects to Sint Maarten. Snocrates 03:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per other similar Sint Maarten category changes last month. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, note that Sint Maarten isn't part of the Netherlands proper, but the Netherlands Antilles. --Soman (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is true at present, but given that the political status of the NethA is currently undergoing change, simply using the term "Sint Maarten" is less likely to require further changes over the next few months. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to match article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Debating alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Participation in a student debating society is rarely a defining characteristic of a notable person. It's of many ways in which students can acquire skills that they may use later in life, but if we tried to categorise by all of them, biographical articles would rapidly become cluttered with categories for student politics, student sports, etc. There are already categories for a few notable debating-related offices such as Category:Presidents of the Oxford Union.
See also CfD 2007 January 28#Category:Debaters, which resulted in the deletion of several similar categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Note that category appears to have been created by a new editor, so please don't bite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Creator's rationale: I created the category because it is a defining characteristic (as much as other categories, like "Living Persons") of many famous people. I've only included people who had already noted this in their bio (so it was notable enough to be included as part of their description). As you noted, being President of the Oxford Union is just one example of notable participation in this area, but there are many others. --Kolsteinz (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first bio I looked at when I found this category was Gabby Logan: no mention of debating. The next one alphabetically is Dickson Mabon; no mention. Some others do mention it, but to suggest that this is as much a defining characteristic as being alive is not very credible. There are many things much more important to someone's career than being debater, such as holding a PhD, which we don't categorise on. We agree that being President of the Oxford Union is a significant post, but that an exceptional position, and most student debating societies have little or no notability outside of their own campus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their bios are linked to from other pages which establish their involvement and notability. Tagging them as debating alumni is merely a way of categorising them to find interesting and relevant information, similar to what "Living Persons" is used for. I don't know what your definition of a defining characteristic is, but categories are fairly lightweight and this information is definitely interesting and useful (maybe not to you, but to everyone interesting in debating around the world), so I don't see why it should be deleted. --Kolsteinz (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "alumni" should be reserved to mean "graduated from a school." No one graduates from debate, so the category name makes no sense. So if kept it would need to be renamed to something like Category:Debaters as we do not categorize on the basis of current and former status. But it shouldn't be kept, because participating in a debate program, club or society is rarely if ever a defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that "alumni" is only used to mean graduated from a school is false. See Category:World Championship Wrestling alumni. As for whether participating in debating is notable, I can understand why you would think it is not if you are looking at it from a US perspective, but around the world, it is certainly notable. In the US, it seems that debating is an extracurricular activity like playing football on the side, whereas around the world it is a major and highly respected activity. --Kolsteinz (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not say that the word was reserved for that purpose. I said that it should be. The wrestling alumni categories should in my opinion be merged to the corresponding wrestlers by promotion category. Regardless, the existence of those categories has no bearing on the existence of this one per WP:WAX. Nor did I suggest that participating in debate was not notable. Notability is not the standard that is used for categories so the notability of the activity is not relevant to whether the category should exist. Otto4711 (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - category should be titled "Public debators" or similar should it stay (I agree with Otto4711 on usage of alumni), but it should go since it would include so many people that it's of no particular use to anyone. I can't see that anyone would use the category to find someone or do other research. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think renaming it would be fine, but I'm not sure I understand the suggestion. What does the phrase "public debaters" mean? --Kolsteinz (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wording "Debating Alumni" is too confusing. Hard for editors to figure out what kind of subjects are and are not appropriate for this category. Purple Watermelon (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "Former University Debaters", similar to Category:Former members of Students for a Democratic Society ? --Kolsteinz (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't split categories by current and former. I will look at Category:Former members of Students for a Democratic Society now, because the "former" shouldn't be in its name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• PS Otto got there first: see CfD 2008 January 6#Category:Former_members_of_Students_for_a_Democratic_Society. --11:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)

• Comment - This category certainly will not so as it is. Every Parliamentarian, Congressman, Senator, etc. participates in debates, so that the present category is too wide to be useful. If we are to have such a category it should be a category of categories (without or with few) individual members, individuals appearing in subcategories. For example, no presidents of the Oxford or Cambridge Union should appear, as they will be in a subcategory. "Alumni" is certainly undesirable as part of the title. If the nature of the category can be defined more sharply (perhpas by a headnote on the category page) and a more suitable name found that fits that, I would be willing to see it kept. This needs sorting and perhaps Kolsteinz as its creator can do that in the next few days. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Even with that repurposing, I would still oppose keeping the category. The presidents of the Oxford or Cambridge Union are a rare group, holders of probably he only two student debating-related positions that are actually notable, and those two exceptional categories don't need a special parent category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ocat, we do not categorize people by what subject they graduated in much less by their extra-curricular activities. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Green Lanterns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as per pecedent not to categorize fictionl characters by group/team/organization. Possible speedy as recreation. J Greb (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete recreation. Doczilla (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's not exactly the same as the other ones, since the ring of power is all that makes them a superhero, and that is only provided by the organization, therefore, this is more a fictional occupation. 70.55.85.22 (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Creator's rationale: The Green Lanterns aren't just a group of superheroes, they're a group of people with the same powers. It's no different than if I had created a category titled DC Comics Aliens or Fictional Telepaths. Being a Green Lantern implies not only being a member of the group, but also having these powers. In fact, I recommend that the Category:Green Lanterns be placed under the Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability as a sub-category. GreenLantern1416 07:19, 3 January 2008

  • If deleted, it should be merged to fictional police officers as the GLC is a police force. 70.51.10.115 (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt as re-creation of deleted material. The precedent against categorizing comic book characters by team or group affiliation is clear. The notion that "Green Lantern" is an occupational category was considered and not supported at the previous CFD. The notion that this is a grouping by power is untenable. The Penguin and Batman each used a GL power ring in an admittedly canonically unclear episode of The Batman and under the power-not-group theory they would theoretically be eligible for inclusion. Otto4711 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Creator's Rational: Yes, people like Penguin and The Atom and Superman have used the Green Lantern ring in the past, but it is by and far considered an exclusive power to the Green Lanterns. Here on Wikipedia, on every Green Lantern's page I've visited, under "abilities," it lists Green Lantern Power Ring as the ability, therefore anyone with the permenant power of having a Green Lantern ring should be eligible for categorization under Green Lanterns. After all, when the Teen Titans switched powers, just because Beast Boy got Raven's powers doesn't mean we can include him in the category "fictional telepaths". There's nothing wrong with categorizing Green Lanterns under the specific ability of having a Green Lantern power ring. I even included Alan Scott in the Category:Green Lanterns, even though he is not a member of the Green Lantern Corps. He has a ring and he has the same powers (for the most part) of the Green Lantern Corps, so he can be counted a Green Lantern. Same thing with Power Ring of the Crime Syndicate of Earth-3. He can be counted as a Green Lantern too, although we might have to get into some technicalities about the differences between a Green Lantern ring and the Volthoom-powered ring he uses. In any event, I don't see any reason why a Green Lantern ring can't be classified as a Green Lantern-specific ability. GreenLantern1416 16:55, 3 January 2007

• From your comments the existing List of Green Lanterns which could include cited information about temporary or one-time power ring wielders is far superior to a category. Otto4711 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Creator's Rational: I personally disagree. I find a category much more accessible and less cluttered than the List of Green Lanterns. The list has tons of Green Lanterns with no pages attached to them. Even some of the hyperlinks for Green Lanterns are unreliable. I fixed a link yesterday on the Green Lantern Apros that took me to an article about a Greek city named Apros. I just find a category much more concise and easy to use and I'm sure many other Wikipedia users would be glad to have a category for Green Lanterns. GreenLantern1416 23:32, 3 January 2008
• Delete per nom, and pass the shaker... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous precedent. Though (I presume) please feel free to turn into a Navbox. - jc37 00:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • see ((Green Lantern)) (been there almost 2 years and it has all of the articles in the cat listed) - J Greb (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (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 Spedy delete as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eau Claire radio stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category is currently empty. Unlike all other U.S. radio geographic categories, which are by city or metropolitan area, this category is for a county, which raises a flag that it's not substantial enough to populate. JPG-GR (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that it matters since the category has been deleted, but there are a number of Eau Claires that are not counties. Otto4711 (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2008 (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.