< October 14	October 16 >

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: consensus that two categories aren't necessary, no consensus as to what to do with them. Suggest renomination. Kbdank71 15:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: small category with little likelihood of expansion. Contents are adequately linked through Simpson's article and the murder trial template. Otto4711 (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but would a rename of Category:O. J. Simpson murder trial to Category:O. J. Simpson trials or similar be worthwhile, to accommodate the stray top level article in Category:O. J. Simpson? Occuli (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I don't have strong feelings either way but it doesn't strike me as being terribly necessary. The rename proposal would require a new nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't - other categories often get dragged in, especially at this early stage. It should be tagged though. I might well support. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This "small category" has a subcategory with 32 articles. That is quite extensive for a category named after "people". By comparison Category:Penn & Teller has 13 articles and Category:Eva Perón 16 (including its subcategory). Dimadick (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX is a poor excuse for keeping a category. Are you really suggesting that an entire parent category is necessary to capture a subcategory? That seems faintly preposterous. Otto4711 (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A structure that already includes some three dozen articles related to OJ and his legal issues, certainly a poor definition of "small". That "Contents are adequately linked through Simpson's article and the murder trial template" is fantastic but is in direct conflict with WP:CLN's that categories AND lists and navigation templates are all designed to work together and not be pitted one against the other. The nomination offers no policy justification for deleting this particular category. Even a side discussion describing categories as not "terribly necessary" makes it clear that this is a matter of arbitrary personal tastes that has nothing to do with how this category assists readers in navigating through articles. Alansohn (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ignorantly misreading the discussion above or are you deliberately distorting my words to try to score a point? I did not say that categories in general are "not terribly necessary." What I said was that renaming the murder trial subcat to "trials" to encompass the robbery trial article was in my opinion unnecessary. I try hard to assume your good faith but given the number of times you've distorted my words and the words of others to try to prove your point it grows ever more difficult. As always, WP:CLN in no way mandates the existence of this or any other category, no matter how many times you stamp your feet and point to it. I would have thought the sheer number of CFDs in which you've advanced this notion only to be shot down would have made that clear by now. And even if we were to accept your invocation of CLN as if it were Holy Writ, the murder trial template would be working synergistically with Category:O. J. Simpson murder trial, which is not nominated for any action here. Otto4711 (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this category, but upmerge Category:O. J. Simpson murder trial. OJS was notable and is perhaps now notorious, so were his trials relating to his wife's death. However, I do not think we need more than one category realting to him. The surviving one may need a headnote expaining why some of the article appear. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 18 October 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.

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 as too vague, recreation permissible with new title reflective of narrowing of scope. As pointed out, almost anything can be a health risk, and I'm certain that's not what this category was meant to capture. If someone wants the list of articles and subcats, I can provide. Kbdank71 15:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - nominated once previously, closed no consensus. The same problems noted in the previous CFD persist. Pretty much anything could be classified as a health risk. If there is no consensus for deletion, an upmerge of some or all of the contents to Category:Health effectors may be appropriate. Otto4711 (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll note that water is not included in the list and drinking water can kill (yes, excessive water intake has killed). Then there is the inclusion of smoking ban. Clearly with no main article this will be a category that will have POV problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly vague. Crime and poverty as health risks? I would like to see a definition for that. Dimadick (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category is too vague. AdjustShift (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to repeat one of my own comments from the previous CFD -- which I strongly urge everybody to read in its entirety before weighing in here:

Keep and possibly rename - I'm still not sure what the final answer is here, but I am quite certain that simple deletion is the wrong answer. In the mean time, I keep coming back to Johnbod's observation that "If it weren't there something would have to replace it." I think he's put his finger on the crucial point here. If "Health risks" is too problematic (and I'm not entirely persuaded that it is), we may want to consider changing the category name to something like "Potential human health risks" or perhaps "Medical and environmental health risks". [I'm currently leaning toward the latter.]

Note to closing admin: Please relist for further discussion. Whatever decision we arrive at should be made on the basis of wider input than we've had thus far. Cgingold (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would something "have to" replace this category? Otto4711 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 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.

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 15:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - poorly conceived and poorly named category, designed to capture anyone accused of using illegal drugs. Even assuming this weren't a WP:BLP nightmare every instance of someone's being accused of or convicted of using a controlled substance is not by definition a "scandal." I see no value in the category but if it is retained it needs to be renamed. Otto4711 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Postdlf (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it is poorly conceived and poorly named category. AdjustShift (talk) 18:00, 17 October 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.

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 per 2008 SEP 9 CfD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per this CfD and general cleanliness, all of these entries are now merged into List of Star Wars characters; category can be deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 15:58, 15 October 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.

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: already deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty. Lists have been redirected and merged into a single list, so category for multiple objects isn't necessary --EEMIV (talk) 15:34, 15 October 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.

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, empty. Kbdank71 20:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty cat not likely to be (re)populated. --EEMIV (talk) 13:24, 15 October 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.

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, empty. Kbdank71 20:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty; not likely to be (re)populated. --EEMIV (talk) 13:11, 15 October 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.

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, empty. Kbdank71 20:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty; not likely to be (re)populated --EEMIV (talk) 12:29, 15 October 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.

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, empty. Kbdank71 20:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I speculated about creating this on my user page. It looks like vandal editor has come across it and decided to create it (without placing anything in the category, evidently). I'm guessing they just did this for a laugh. Should we retain the category (perhaps tweaking the name) and populate it from list of coupled cousins, or just delete it? Richard001 (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a case where the existing list does an excellent job, but the category is highly problematic. Not only is it far too broad (covering a wide range of cousins), but even if restricted to first cousins, it would be likely to invite mischief, in my opinion. Cgingold (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a category empty for 4 days is a speedy delete. (I see no reason for ascribing vandalism to the creator.) Occuli (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Depending on the definition of cousin, this could include everyone who ever married. Dimadick (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a problematic category with trivial characteristic. AdjustShift (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I had in mind originally was just first cousins - I'm aware that every human is my nth cousin. I don't think that potential vandalism is a good reason to delete a page - the decision should be made on the category's merit. It has been empty simply because nobody has populated it, so that's completely irrelevant, and the creator is clearly a vandal if you bother to look at their edits. Richard001 (talk) 21:23, 17 October 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.

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) 09:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Proposed change of primary U.S. classification, and nobody responded. There are several reasons I believe these should be deleted:

Unlike Class I railroads, people generally don't think of a company as Class II or Class III. It's a non-Class I, or a regional or short line.
These categories are not verifiable, as there is no known way of determining whether a company is Class II or III. The Surface Transportation Board does not publish a list of these companies, and applying the definition requires obtaining the operating revenues for the past three years. When the STB authorizes a company's action, such as abandonment or common control, it often states what class the company is, but this often contradicts other sources, including operating revenue figures where available. One exmple of this can be seen at Talk:Alaska Railroad#Class II versus Class III.
The Association of American Railroads defines a reasonable replacement for Class II - regional railroad - that is in wider use. I have already recategorized those.
And for Class III, this is the majority of railroads. There's no need to replace the Class III category with anything, since these are already categorized by state.

I am also nominating the related templates for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Class II and III railroad templates. NE2 03:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - The nominator followed due process before implementing the changes that rendered these categories obsolete; no objections were raised within the WikiProject. Slambo (Speak) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No objections were raised within the WikiProject Trains, so no objections should be raised here. AdjustShift (talk) 18:08, 17 October 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.

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/upmerge to appropriate American categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization; upmerge as appropriate. Category:Pennsylvania comics artists and Category:Pennsylvania comics writers are the only subcategories of Category:American comics artists and Category:American comics writers respectively. Those were apparently created only to hold Category:Comics creators from Pittsburgh, which has only nine entries, all of which are also in the top-level American comics writers and artists categories. There are no other "comics creators from Foo" categories, so this does not fit into any existing structure, nor is there reason to create one. As these are not targeted to individuals whose comics-related careers began in or were tied to Pittsburgh, and comics is not a local industry, the intersection of these individuals' careers with a city they were "born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with" is completely arbitrary. Postdlf (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ocat for sure. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorisation - if we were going to have "comics creators by state" we'd need to do all or nothing and then only after a healthy discussion. (Emperor (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom, overcategorization. AdjustShift (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom to US categories. Where they already appear this will have the same effect as deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 18 October 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.

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 with Ptydepe moved to Category:Works by Václav Havel. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's just not enough there to warrant a category. Ptydepe should be moved to Category:Works by Václav Havel, which is the only parent cat that's needed here. That would leave Category:Václav Havel with just the main article and a single sub-cat -- nowhere near enough for a category. Cgingold (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I enjoyed Ptydepe. Occuli (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AdjustShift (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Richard001 (talk) 21:36, 17 October 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Václav Havel plays to Category:Václav Havel works

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge there. Very fews links. Magioladitis (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – part of Category:Plays by author. Occuli (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli & well-established scheme, precedents. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep - Removal of this category would leave a gaping hole in Category:Plays by author. Cgingold (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Merge His works are mainly plays; this justifies a merger. However, the problem may simply be that many articles about his plays have not be created yet. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, per long established precedent, plays always have their own sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plays, delete works as an unnecessary redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should explain that both of the "works" variants already existed -- I just switched them around so the one that's consistent with all of the other sub-cats of Category:Works by author is now the one that's actually being used. Sorry for any confusion! Cgingold (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if there was an article plays by Václav Havel - would that mean that the category was less important? Since the article could be placed in the same category as the category, it would no longer leave a gaping hole. Just a hypothetical question. Richard001 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would affect the matter. The precedent is that schemes like "novels by", Plays by" , "films by" & "Albums by" only need one member. Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the different treatment for 'Category:Václav Havel' though? Doesn't it leave a 'gaping hole' in its parent categories too?

Actually, you can probably ignore these questions. Rereading them I seem to have lost track of what analogy I was making somewhere along the way. Richard001 (talk) 07:51, 18 October 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.

October 15

Category:O. J. Simpson

Category:Health risks

Category:Drug scandals

Category:Dark Jedi

Category:Lists of Star Wars characters

Category:Star Wars Trade Federation characters

Category:Imperial Grand Admirals

Category:Star Wars families

Category:People who married their cousins

Class II and III railroad categories

Comics writers and artists from Pittsburgh/Pennsylvania categories

Category:Václav Havel

Category:Václav Havel plays