< October 20	October 22 >

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: relisted on 29th. Kbdank71 13:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Discuss - the parent cat was recently CFDed with a result of "consensus that two categories aren't necessary, no consensus as to what to do with them. Suggest renomination." Possible outcomes that I see are: 1) Delete Category:O. J. Simpson, retain Category:O. J. Simpson murder trial; 2) Upmerge the trial category to the parent; 3) Delete the parent category, rename the murder trial category to Category:O. J. Simpson trials to capture O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case; 4) Something I haven't thought of. I have a preference for deleting the parent, as merging the categories takes the murder trial category out of the parent . I have no incredibly strong opinion on the idea of renaming to "trials" to capture the robbery article, but as I said at the last CFD, I don't find it terribly necessary. Otto4711 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:O. J. Simpson to Category:O. J. Simpson trials, make it a subcat of Category:Trials in the United States, make Category:O. J. Simpson murder trial no longer a direct subcat of Category:Trials in the United States, and return to considering whether it is OR to read a book or consult a dictionary. (If it is, it ought to be quite easy to get some doctorates together.) Occuli (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of complicated. Retaining both categories means that there would be two articles in the main "trials" category, Simpson's article and the Vegas robbery article. That seems unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:O. J. Simpson - this will enable articles relating to his distinguished sporting career to be included as well as ones to his subsequent (alleged) criminal one. I see no objection to this appearing in multiple categories including trial ones, despite trial not being part of the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There do not appear to be any articles about his football career. Otto4711 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:O. J. Simpson has only three articles, and I don't think the cat will have more articles. I think Category:O. J. Simpson should be deleted per WP:OC#SMALL. Category:O. J. Simpson murder trial should be left alone. AdjustShift (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Upmerge O. J. Simpson murder case and O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case to Category:Trials in the United States
Delete Category:O. J. Simpson murder trial - No other trial under Category:Trials in the United States categorises people who were involved in those trials. This seems rather similar to the cats for placenames noted in a work of fiction. The standard rule is to listify or delete. Since the information is presented contextually in the main article, simply delete.
Delete Category:O. J. Simpson - WP:OC#SMALL, and the articles are all linked in the main article O. J. Simpson.

- jc37 12:16, 28 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: relisted on 29th. Kbdank71 13:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region to Category:Magallanes and Antártica Chilena Region or to Category:Magallanes and Antártica Chilena Region
Category:Geography of Magallanes and Chilean Antártica Region to Category:Geography of Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region or Category:Geography of Magellan and Chilean Antartica Chilena Region
Magallanes and Antártica Chilena Region to Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region or Magellan and Chilean Antarctica Region

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Categories are at two different forms of the name of this region, article is at a third, varying essentially according to degree of seemingly ad hoc anglicisation. I don't have a particular preference for which, as long as we end up with something consistent, for which there's reasonable evidence for common use in English. Alai (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename using "Magellan and Chilean Antartica Region" form as the best English translation of the Spanish name. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until all Chilean regions uses the same form. Currently the word Región is spelled in English at all articles and at most articles (with the exception of Santiago Metropolitan Region and Magallanes) the short version of the Spanish form is used. This is the current "maintream" translation in wikipedia. If Magallanes Region got an english name then Los Ríos and Los Lagos Region should be renamed to River Region and Lake Region? The same logic should be aplied to all Chilean regions. Dentren | ^Talk 11:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you're "opposing" the option favoured by Peterkingiron immediately above. Note, however that the nomination is for three inconsistent entities, all at different forms of the name. Presumably you're not opposing moving all of them -- right? Alai (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it is better to have one spelling for the region, but this is a problem that should be discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Chile-related_regional_notice_board#On:_Chile_Settlement_naming_convention. This "naming problem" that many Chilean regions have so it would be good to find a solution for all regions. The "problems" about naming Chilean regions include:

Long vs Short version of the name: why should Magellan Region be spelled with its full name as Magellan and Chilean Antarctica Region and not Aisén Region as Aisén Region of General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo ?
To include or not the roman numerals: XIV Los Ríos Region or Los Ríos Region.
English or Spanish spelling? Which parts of the name should be spelled in English and which in Spanish? Dentren | ^Talk 08:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Oh, for heaven's sakes. If you want to have a discussion there about a wider convention, fair enough, but don't be using "adjourn and move for change of venue" as a rationale for a blanket oppose of all attempts to achieve a modicum of internal consistency in the meantime. Alai (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's of any assistance to the closer, I'd be happy with either the "Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region" or the "Magellan and Chilean Antarctica Region" form for all. Alai (talk) 03:49, 28 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 14:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category, subject to original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC#SMALL, there are only five articles in the cat, and I don't think there will be more articles in the cat. AdjustShift (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of potential for growth, just nobody's tried to populate the category yet. Stepheng3 (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per other similar "songs about" category deletions. How much of the song needs to address divorce to make it "about" divorce? Otto4711 (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not likely to ever have inclusion criteria what would not be subjective. POV category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:06, 26 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 14:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: delete: Unnecessary category that only contains the main article and the navigation template, which is itself at TfD. Note that I am also nominating the empty subcategory Category:Chrono Crusade characters. —Dino guy 1000 21:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for both, as per nom. -- Highwind ⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 07:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Both cats are needless, Category:Chrono Crusade characters is empty. I don't see any potential for expansion. AdjustShift (talk) 16:01, 23 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 14:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just not big enough to warrant its own cat (and leaving on one side the unusual way in which it has been populated). HeartofaDog (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: added another for exactly the same reason, ie, too small to warrant its own cat HeartofaDog (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom; categories should not duplicate "what links here." Postdlf (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom, noting that the first classifies Henry I as a Grade I listed building. (Surprising burials at the 2nd, which is not yet tagged.) Occuli (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some tidying-up. All of these articles are related to Reading Abbey, thus seems a good reason to have a category. EstherLois (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC) [creator of both cats][reply]
- Comment: as per the two users above, I'm afraid - Wiki cats aren't just collections of random connections HeartofaDog (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were all it took, every article would have a category containing every article it linked to or that linked to it. Some of the included articles here are places merely located near the category subject; it certainly does not define them. Please see relevant guidelines regarding overcategorization. Postdlf (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading, which has enough articles to warrant a category. Not sure about Farnborough, where the links in the article are likely to be a sufficient navigational tool to link the contents. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - neither is capturing articles that are strongly defined by the individual abbeys. The articles on the abbeys serve as sufficient navigational hubs. The number of articles in a category is not in and of itself necessarily cause to keep it. Otto4711 (talk) 23:37, 23 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, recreation permissible if/when main article is written and other albums released. Kbdank71 12:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There seems to be only one album released on this label, and the label itself does not have an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:05, 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: SPEEDY DELETE, recreation. Postdlf (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category was merged to Category:German-Americans a few weeks ago (see [1]), somebody recreated it. Wulf Isebrand (talk) 19:52, 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: keep nominated categories. To the "restore" comments, that particular category is already listed at DRV, please comment there. Kbdank71 14:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters from Wisconsin

Category:Fictional characters from West Virginia

Category:Fictional characters from Washington, D.C.

Category:Fictional characters from Washington

Category:Fictional characters from Virginia

Category:Fictional characters from Vermont

Category:Fictional characters from Utah

Category:Fictional characters from Texas

Category:Fictional characters from Tennessee

Category:Fictional characters from South Carolina

Category:Fictional characters from Rhode Island

Category:Fictional characters from Philadelphia

Category:Fictional characters from Pittsburgh

Category:Fictional characters from Pennsylvania

Category:Fictional characters from Oregon

Category:Fictional characters from Oklahoma

Category:Fictional characters from Ohio

Category:Fictional characters from North Dakota

Category:Fictional characters from North Carolina

Category:Fictional characters from New York City

Category:Fictional characters from New York

Category:Fictional characters from New Mexico

Category:Fictional characters from New Jersey

Category:Fictional characters from New Hampshire

Category:Fictional characters from Nevada

Category:Fictional characters from Nebraska

Category:Fictional characters from Montana

Category:Fictional characters from Missouri

Category:Fictional characters from Mississippi

Category:Fictional characters from Minnesota

Category:Fictional characters from Michigan

Category:Fictional characters from Massachusetts

Category:Fictional characters from Maryland

Category:Fictional characters from Maine

Category:Fictional characters from New Orleans

Category:Fictional characters from Louisiana

Category:Fictional characters from Kentucky

Category:Fictional characters from Kansas

Category:Fictional characters from Iowa

Category:Fictional characters from Indiana

Category:Fictional characters from Chicago

Category:Fictional characters from Illinois

Category:Fictional characters from Idaho

Category:Fictional characters from Hawaii

Category:Fictional characters from Georgia (U.S. state)

Category:Fictional characters from Florida

Category:Fictional characters from Delaware

Category:Fictional characters from Connecticut

Category:Fictional characters from Colorado

Category:Fictional characters from California

Category:Fictional characters from Arkansas

Category:Fictional characters from Arizona

Category:Fictional characters from Alaska

Category:Fictional characters from Alabama

Nominator's rationale: Parent category was deleted via CfD. The same arguments apply here: reliance on original research and mutability of fictional characters. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore parent Category:Fictional Americans along with the other arbitrarily deleted nationality cats. Closing admin was wrong to delete those cats initially and compounding the error by deleting more categories is not the way to go. If anything, these categories are less mutable than their real-life counterparts, given the frequency with which real people move from state to state. Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear on why it would take original research to determine that a fictional character was from a particular state or city. Postdlf (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What state is Batman from? How about the Flash? Attempting to categorise characters by whatever state we presume they live in "in-universe", is WP:OR, with very few exceptions. (Ask me, c'mon, you know you wanna ask me: Why are they WP:OR? And what are the "very few exceptions"? : ) - jc37 22:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what state Batman or Flash is from (although I seem to recall that Wally West was established as being from California but it's been a long time). Ask me what state Spider-Man is from. If we don't know what state a character is from, then don't include them in the category. DC characters from fictional cities within the United States don't need to be listed as being from a particular state. If only we had a general category for fictional characters from America... Otto4711 (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore per Otto. I think the OR involved is called 'reading' if it's a book or 'listening' if it's a film. Occuli (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That comment really causes me to wonder if you actually understand Wikipedia's policies on appropriate usage of primary sources... - jc37 22:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we cannot deduce from Lord of the Rings that Bilbo is a hobbit (say) then Wikipedia's policies on the matter are ludicrous. Occuli (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two concepts (Hobbits and Americans) aren't analogous. A Hobbit isn't a nationality, it's a type of fictional creature. - jc37 15:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know? Sounds like OR to me. Occuli (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand them fairly well. For example, in Flash Gordon (film) when Dale Arden tells Flash that she's a "New York City girl" that pretty clearly establishes that she's a fictional character from New York. No OR required. Other iterations from the character may be from other states. If that's so, then the character can be listed in each state category that's verifiable. Otto4711 (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that any character has ever been known to lie or misrepresent information (or even be misinformed or mistaken) about themself... (At least Flash Gordon doesn't have Skrulls : ) - jc37 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We go by the best information that we have. If later information surfaces that Dale was lying about being from New York, then she can be removed from the category. Otto4711 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and overturn previous Cfd, per Otto & my comments below. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous CfD (And WP:DRV is that way in regards to the rest.) Noting also that there do not seem to be any more substantial comments this time around than last time... - jc37 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that a single character has been placed into any of these categories on the basis of original research, just like there was no evidence the last time. Any category that characterizes either real people or fictional characters may fall prey to OR. That someone might put a fictional character in the wrong state or make an assumption about the state the character is from is no excuse to continue the hack job that's being done on fictional character categories. Otto4711 (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the location of these fictional characters (comics in particular) is almost entirely presumed. Often such things are intentionally left vague in order for appeal to an audience regardless of locale. It allows the reader to see the home city of the character as a location in their country. I realise that Wikipedia has an American bias (among other things), but I believe we're supposed to look at these thiings from an international viewpoint? - jc37 15:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and restore the parent category. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason? - jc37 15:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just because I really like all the Minnesota related categories about fictional things. I find it to be entertaining trivia.
Keep all and restore the parent category. Children who like Batman may want to know the state of Batman. When I was a child, I used to watch RoboCop. He was a Detroit police officer. These categories are useful for children who are interested in their favorite fictional characters. AdjustShift (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just guessing, but it looks like you haven't read any of the discussion above. Note that "state" of Gotham City (Batman's home) is and has been intentionally vague (or contradicting) for at least 68 years...) - jc37 15:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and restore parent A rather meaningful association for fictional characters that is provided by the creator / author as a defining characteristic. As with all categories, inclusion should be based on reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim. The New York Times (see "F.Y.I.") had no trouble establishing New York City residency, down to the address, for Spiderman, the members of the Fantastic Four, Daredevil (Marvel Comics) and Doctor Strange. As there are reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim that this is a defining characteristic, as there are sources for the individual characters and as there is no policy justification offered in the nomination as justification for deletion, there is no reason to delete this category structure. To address User:Good Olfactory's in the close of the previous CfD, I will provide a reminder that the comic book world is not even a small fraction of the world of fiction, let alone a reason to drive the fictional character structure. The overwhelming majority of characters in the largest part of fiction -- books -- have very stable stories and characteristics, including well-defined states of residence. Movies and television are also unlikely to tinker at whim with a character's story and backstory. The argument from retroactive continuity is trotted out ad nauseum (emphasis on the nauseum) as a sorry excuse to delete entire categories when its relevance, if it has any whatsoever, is only to the inclusion of particular entries in some categories in which the decision to include a borderline case should be based on how the character is identified in reliable and verifiable sources. The fact that Batman or George Jetson don;t live in a state is a sorry excuse to use as a rationalization to delete a category. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I largely agree with your comments above regarding these categories (particularly that the residences of most fictional characters is not going to be that hard to ascertain, and for those it is they simply won't go in any of these categories), it should still be noted that comic book characters represent a sizeable portion of Wikipedia articles on fictional characters, for two reasons: 1) most of our fictional character articles are characters featured in serialized fiction or media franchises, because characters that only appear in one book are not likely to be given standalone articles apart from the book's article; and 2) Wikipedia is largely written by American nerds such as myself, so there is a cultural systemic bias as to what gets the most voluminous coverage. So in practice, most fictional character categories primarily group Wikipedia articles on comic book characters, video game characters, television series characters, film series characters, etc., and categories only have value as organizing/classifying tools for Wikipedia articles. Postdlf (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's the old story about the drunk looking for his keys at night under a lamp post, even though he lost his keys many yards away. Asked why, he replies "because the light is better here". In many cases, we have to be careful about countering systemic bias in issues that are not reported in the English-language press. I have always been surprised by the egregiously disproportionate percentage of active participants at CfD who are participants at WP:Comics, and at least I am finally hearing a reason that sort of answers the question. We have to be careful to avoid systemic bias whatever its source, and reminding ourselves that all fiction does not come printed on newsprint with flexible covers and that there is lots more fiction in hardcover form at places like bookstores and libraries. These categories are for fictional characters, not just comic book characters. Alansohn (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all these, and restore related categories. Regionality in literature is relevant in most genres of fiction (at the moment I'm thinking of cinema & drama as much as novels). Except in the most unusual of works, the characters each come from somewhere specific, and this is a key part of the characterization. Its one of the things people remember. Its one of the things they would want to browse. They're character types: Texans, New Yorkers, whatever ... DGG (talk) 03:03, 24 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: no consensus on black irish, keep the rest. Kbdank71 15:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Parent category was deleted via CfD. The same arguments apply here: reliance on original research and mutability of fictional characters. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the subcategories appear to be tagged. Postdlf (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll work on tagging the subcats. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and restore Category:Fictional Americans. This was a bulk nom running together sensible categories such as this one with various comics and anime cats of a specious nature. It is ridiculous not to be able to categorise Americans in fiction as 'fictional Americans'. (I might well argue for upmerging all or most of the above into Category:Fictional Americans. Black Irish-Americans, indeed.) Occuli (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that you're preference is to "UpMerge all" to Category:Fictional Americans? - jc37 22:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. I generally look to see if there is a corresponding category for actual people. Category:Black Irish-Americans - no. Category:African Americans - yes. Others - perhaps. Occuli (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - This is a terribly misbegotten nomination. I agree entirely with Occuli's comment with regard to the CFD that resulted in the deletion of Category:Fictional Americans (and all of the other nationalities) . However, I most certainly would not support upmerging these categories by ethnicity. Removing them would be a travesty of the first order. A huge part of American literature is populated precisely by characters of particular ethnicities. It is patently absurd to suggest that these characters are "mutable", or that "original research" is required in order to ascribe ethnicity. In most cases, the information is right there in the text of the story; where it isn't, the article can be removed from the category -- just as is done with any other category. Why should these categories be treated any differently?? Cgingold (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something may be worthy of writing an article, doesn't mean that we should be categorising individual characters based upon presumed ethnicity. (Especially in cases such as comics where, especially often in the Golden Age, ethnicity was merely what shade or tint of colour happened to be used by a colourist.) - jc37 22:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was Category:Comics characters by origin for comics characters. Comics characters should be in Category:Comics characters (or Category:Fictional American comics characters or some such) and not in Category:Fictional Americans. Occuli (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Comics characters should be in [comics-related categories] and not in Category:Fictional Americans."

A sincerely fascinating opinion.

Should the same be said about television characters?

Or to ask another way, are you suggesting that only characters in written fiction (and disincluding comics even in that) should be in the fictional characters cats? - jc37 07:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I definitely agree with Occuli that the Fictional Americans category should be restored. The ethnic subcats may be less urgent, but I would argue that they help to illustrate how various groups have been depicted in literature, television, film, etc.Bjones (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and restored fictional Americans & all the rest - the nomination was to rename, an issue I for one had no strong views over. If it had been a Delete nom, I would certainly have opposed - did it go to review? I hope the closer here will overturn the previous decision. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I closed that nom but no, it never did go to review and I only had one inquiry about it, from Otto. I wouldn't oppose such a move for review; I expected that it would happen. You may have a hard time demonstrating that I "misinterpreted" the discussion :) (or not), but it may nevertheless be worthwhile if you think there's a consensus for re-creation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like Johnbod I would have opposed a blanket delete vehemently. I do not even recall that cfd - if the nom is rename and the extent of the nom is hidden in default view then perhaps one can get all manner of things deleted surreptitiously (this was evidently not the intention of this particular nom as the nominator - otto - has protested at some length to the closer). James Bond for instance is now in no nationality cat (he was in an English one although he is patently Scottish) ... surely it cannot be OR to say he is/was British, that this is defining and should be categorised as such? Occuli (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm; I'm not sure I would agree it was in any way "surreptitious". It was opened, relisted, stayed open for over 1 month ... We can only do so much to let people know. No one has the magical power to know who "would be" interested and who is just ignoring it because they don't care. Also, the original intent of the nominator is irrelevant if consensus points a different way. Once the nomination is made all options are on the table. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all except Category:Fictional Black Irish-Americans: I don't think that people (fictional or not) should be categorized by physical appearance. The article Black Irish describes a "dark brown or black hair phenotype appearing in Caucasian persons of Irish descent. This can be distinguished in contrast to the (lighter) brown, blond or red hair color variant, the latter stereotypically perceived to personify the look of typical Irish folk." --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no, no -- the line you quoted has nothing whatsoever to do with this category, which is about people/characters who are of mixed African American-Irish American parentage. They are actually a significant ethnic sub-group in San Francisco and other cities. (There's a little bit on this at Black Irish#Other_uses). Cgingold (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but that's very specific. Categories like "German-Irish Americans" were deleted, we could have hundreds of intersections for people with multiple ethnic backgrounds. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale above "has nothing whatsoever to do with this category", which since its creation has had the explicit scoping statement "Fictional Americans of Black Irish descent." Its current population (of three, all McNamaras from "Nip/Tuck") also does nothing to support this (re)interpretation. Strong delete. Alai (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Fictional Black Irish-Americans per Wulf, noting also that there is not a corresponding categegory for real people. No comment on the remainder for now. Postdlf (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous CfD (And WP:DRV is that way in regards to the rest.) Noting also that there do not seem to be any more substantial comments this time around than last time... - jc37 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we are certainly seeing none from the deleters .... Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "per the previous CfD", I meant my comments there as well. And I think User:Hiding's comments in that discussion are substantial. And since the closer here will be taking that discussion under consideration of this close...

Also, I suppose I should re-affirm that I am not greatly opposed to listification. - jc37 12:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all except Black Irish - there has been nothing presented here, just like there was nothing presented in the poorly-closed previous CFD, that indicates that even a single entry in any of these categories is based on original research. If any such examples are found, then remove them from the category. Certainly someone may indulge in OR when deciding to add a character but that is true of any category. The buzz saw that's being taken to the fictional character categories recently is a solution in search of a problem. Otto4711 (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on merits, but the related ethnicities should have all been changed to the form "Americans of Fooian descent" and should be renamed accordingly. I fail to see how one can have a Black Irishman, except by inter-racial marriage; this and German-Irish are triple intersections and should be deleted in any event. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in whatever standard form is desired and restore any related ones that may have been deleted. The arguments are essentially the same as for US States. If there are one or two to remove it shouldnt be done as part of this--they should all be closed as keep, and thst one or two argued separately. DGG (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, except... Another category structure that captures a strong defining characteristics for fictional characters. I would go on further, but Otto4711 has so aptly characterized my usual argument. I promise to use it in future CfDs in a lightly paraphrased form. This statement here should be considered as giving credit in advance for the plagiarism. Alansohn (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest keep all per WP:SNOW, restore "Fictional Americans" category, and block of nominating editor for disruption of our project. Badagnani (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think maybe you need to chill. Starting a CfD nomination is not "disruption". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're absolutely right. Starting a CfD nomination is not "disruption". Starting two or three CfDs nomination might well not be "disruption". What about starting several dozen? When does it become "disruption"? Alansohn (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - When they are all overturned at DRV. Which they weren't (unlike, say, several dozen DRV nominations closed as endorsed, but that's neither here nor there). --Kbdank71 15:09, 28 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 14:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, overcategorization by opinion on a single issue. Whether someone wants to create a different category for drug legalization activists is a separate issue that shouldn't hold up getting rid of this category. Postdlf (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would agree that categories of this sort should focus on advocacy/activism. But in this case I think there's a larger problem: the term "drug legalization" covers an awful lot of ground. Are we talking about legalizing all drugs?? Or just one or more specific drugs? There's a substantial difference. So I'm not sure that we would want to lump them in together (even for activists). Cgingold (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How about this: Category:Drug policy reform activists. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Cgingold. Overcategorization and too vague. Timeshifter's idea for an alternate category merits consideration, however.--JayJasper (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per points above. In addition to those points, "favoring" means it is an opinion. Opinions can change. 'Drug policy reform activists' is better. --maclean 03:59, 25 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: No consensus to rename. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cultural economics to Category:Cultural economics; economic sociology; economic anthropology

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A couple of years ago, the JEL classification codes for JEL: Z1 { http://www.aeaweb.org/journal/jel_class_system.html#Z ) was renamed from "Cultural economics" to "Cultural economics, economic sociology, economic anthropology". This Category page needs renaming to reflect the change. Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No offense intended, Thomasmeeks, but it simply doesn't make any sense for Wikipedia to slavishly follow the JEL classification codes for our Category names. I've come across these JEL-derived categories before -- many times they make sense, but sometimes they don't. In any event, what's needed are categories/names which make good sense in terms of the Wikipedia category structure and naming conventions, etc. I can see how these three sub-fields are closely related to one another, but we can't just throw three terms together and call it a Category name. In short, the suggested rename is a complete non-starter that doesn't come anywhere near being a suitable name for a Category. In addition, we already have Category:Economic anthropology as a separate category (though we don't have Category:Economic sociology). If you feel that the existing categories are unsuitable, my suggestion is, please explain why and make the case for a better alternative. (One obvious possibility is merging the two existing categories, though we would have to settle on a name.) Cgingold (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. The proposal above was to match JEL: Z1 with the current name of that category per above. Agreed, though, no reason to dump existing cats together. The easier solution might be to unlink JEL: Z1 at JEL classification codes#Other special topics (economics) JEL: Z Subcategories from its currently anachrobnistic link. Perhaps a JEL note (like that at Category:Cultural economics) for Category:Economic sociology (to be proposed)) and Category:Economic anthropology would be in order (without any grand triad). How does that sound? --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. Of course, you're free to create & populate Category:Economic sociology any time you like -- there's no need to get approval for that. If you want to withdraw your renaming proposal, we can just close out this CFD. Cgingold (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to Category:Socioeconomics. --Wassermann (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely not -- they have nothing in common. Take a look at the contents and you'll see. Cgingold (talk) 10:17, 26 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: Rename to Category:Brand name potato-based snack foods, noting that there was concensus to shorten the category name to "Potato-based snack food" but there was no concensus on whether to rename the "Brand name x foods" to "X food brands", defaulting to keep the current format. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brand name potato chips, potato crisps, and other potato-based snack foods to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I have no idea, but anything but this. Perhaps Category:Brand name potato snack foods, or Category:Brand name potato-based snack foods. I don't know, they're all too wordy... Katr67 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Potato-based snack food brands. Otto4711 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Potato-based snack food brands, which matches similar categories like Category:Instant noodle brands and Category:Peanut butter brands, and on up the tree to the subcats of Category:Brands by product type. -choster (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also see food product brand categories group CFR
Rename to Category:Potato-based snack foods. Looking at the category, there are three entries for Lay's. However Lay's is the brand and they others are products. So this rename seems to make the most sense and does not prevent someone from breaking out the actual brands. Again this is part of the confusion in these entire category area. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Lay's Stax, for instance, are a brand of what in the U.S. would be termed potato crisps (a salty snack made from reconstituted potatoes), like Pringles. Every other entry in the category also refers to a line of snacks; even the shortest stub, Fresher Potato Chips, lists four different varieties of Fresher's. -choster (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Brand name potato-based snack foods, and if the other noted CFR, which was relisted on the 16th goes through, rename to Category:Potato-based snack food brands. Just going for consistency. --Kbdank71 13:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to :Category:Potato-based snack food brands per nom, makes sense to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:35, 23 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: RENAME to Category:Education in Mobile, Alabama, which conforms to existing category structure. Postdlf (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Educational institutions in Mobile, Alabama to Category:Education in Mobile, Alabama

Nominator's rationale: Rename to follow naming convention of parent category and its subcategories. Altairisfar _talk 15:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - this search indicates that 'Category:Educational institutions in Foo' is not in wide use. Occuli (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - How about Category:Schools in Mobile, Alabama? Stepheng3 (talk) 20:23, 25 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. Of course, all editors are welcome to contribute to these discussions about categories, regardless of your previous level of involvement in Wikipedia, so long as you are a unique editor, and not just using a unique Wikipedia account. As Peterkingiron notes, categories like this have been being renamed "Fooians of Hakka descent"; there wasn't much discussion of this here b/c the focus was on keep vs. delete, but these changes could certainly be proposed in a future CfD. The format is still far from universal in these types of categories. The categories were also not properly tagged; since the result was "keep" we'll overlook that flaw, but it certainly contributes to the idea that a future CfD on these should be without prejudice to these results. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete- Do we really need this? I think it's getting a bit trivial. Dengero (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So are you saying all ethnic categories by country are trivial? 70.55.200.131 (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong is a city. Are we going to have Hakka Macauer's, Hakka Parisians, Hakka Berliners, etc etc etc? Or if it's by country, are we going to have Hakka Canadians, Hakka Australians, Hakka Germans? Dengero (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- Hakka is a significant Chinese ethnicity. We have a lot of dual-national categories for expatriates. Most of these were changed a month or two back to the form, "Fooian of Hakka descent"; these were evidently missed. The same should apply to these ones and any others of the same nature. It is possible that so many Hong Kong people have this descent that it is not notable (I do not know), but the others certainly should be kept in some form. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information listed here is pure information. Some can process the data here into information and some just cannot fathom it. Data and information is never "trivial". These information are useful and of interest. From an informational point-of-view, this is a very relevant page. To bring it down, based on the Hakka ethnicity it highlights would be pure arrogance and prejudice. The purpose of Wikipedia, is to post information (I believe). And this is exactly what this page is doing. It is serving its purpose. Ignorant arrogance would want to bring it down. *** Jing974623 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles serve as information about people in public life who are of these minority backgrounds. Dylanwhs (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, but the to distinguish them nation-by-nation origin-by-origin? And like peter said, so many people originate from that place, but probably so many generations ago it isn't notable anymore. A lot of people in those categories weren't even born there. Dengero (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I respect most hard works. A lot of effort and time has been put into 'works' like these in Wikipedia. These particular sites are harmless and purely informational. To have painstakingly organized and structured them as thus, is awesome! Structured works offers convenience to readers. Also, any chinese born overseas, do not automatically get disqualified as being chinese (even though not born in China). *** Jing974623 (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Indented as a second !vote. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

~~Don't vote twice -.-~~ Actually, note that the above user hasn't contributed in any articles at all, and only seemingly created to participate in this discussion. Dengero (talk) 06:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - With respect to the articles in particular, it is true I haven't made any contribution to them. Then again, other than requesting the deletion of the articles, neither have you. As a wikipedian since Feb 2004, I am excercising my democratic right as other wikipedians do in voting for keeping or otherwise of an article under consideration in this forum discussion. Since you already agree with the basic argument that it is informative of people in public life, then I don't see why categorisation by locale should be dismissed. Even if they are no longer resident, or have no birth in the locales listed, if they now live or have a connection to those places, then it can only serve to disseminate factual information. That is why I choose to keep the articles listed above, even though they're just classification pages. Dylanwhs (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Pardon me, I mainly use Wikipedia for information. I do not specifically visit Wikipedia, but various searches brings me here. The door to edit was opened, and when I contributed to this discussion, I did not get notification that I cannot participate because I am not a contributor. My participation is that of a frequent Wikipedia user, and I know users appreciate well structured documents. But as an avid contributor, you appear to have failed to appreciate the hardworks and dedication of another fellow contributor. You dismissed it thoughtlessly with a wave of your hand. Nevertheless, I also appreciate your hard works and dedication. My searches have also brougt me to your contributions in the past, and your works have been much appreciated. Up to this point, I knew nothing about what goes on in Wikipedia backend, but I am learning. Bringing down these pages is regretful.*** Jing974623 (talk) 14:35, 25 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 14:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category related to AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Appleton. Not notable. Deadly∀ssassin 12:40, 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: RENAME. No evident basis for current name; rename accurately reflects contents. Postdlf (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Windows PET icons to Category:Microsoft Office icons

Nominator's rationale: Google returns no relevant results for 'PET icon'. ff m 12:30, 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: merge. Kbdank71 13:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Blues-rock groups. I don't see any substantive distinction between these two categories -- simply put, they are redundant. Category:Blues-rock groups is the parent cat, and also follows the naming convention for musical groups. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I was unaware of this category when creating it.Thanks for catching that. (Mind meal (talk) 01:55, 24 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 Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale - this category has nothing useful with only one person in the category. It has been here for almost two months, but still only has one person listed. What use is a category with only one person?--Parthian Scribe 04:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. There may be only one person listed in the category now, but the nature of the category is such that it could have other articles added in the future. And we do have comparable categories for former members of other religions; see Category:People by former religion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per discussion referenced below by Good Ol'factory; we just kept this category less than two months ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have a number of 1-article siblings to this category in Category:People by former religion. I have to say that I found it quite useful, as I just learned a highly interesting bit of information about professor Juan Cole as a direct result of this particular category. Cgingold (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments and 2008 SEP 1 discussion, which resulted in "keep". Not all editors are of the view that single-article categories are inherently useless, me included. I believe you should evaluate a category in its context within categories trees (or bushes, whatever), not in splendid isolation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the structure Category:People by former religion. I have just added a link to the old CFD discussion on the category talk page. It can be useful when closing admins to do this at the time. I'm also changing the template at the top of this nomination to link to the nominated category. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a legitimate category with potential for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The cat has one person now, but it has the potential for expansion. AdjustShift (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until other articles are found/written. As of now, there is only one article. Categorization is for finding like articles. When there aren't any, you don't need the category. Make sure the article states the person is a former Bahá'í and leave it at that. By the way, "potential for expansion" is fine, but when the category has been around as long as this has with no expansion, it's time to move on and recreate it when you can actually expand it, not potentially expand it. --Kbdank71 13:49, 27 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: no consensus. BTW, WP:WAX applies not only to the Oprah example, but for the Ellen example as well. Probably should keep that in mind when this gets renominated. Kbdank71 13:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the bulk of the category is improper person by project categorization. Removing those articles would leave nothing in the category but the articles for the two men and the joint article. The joint article contains a complete linked listing of all projects. Category not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note this discussion from 2007. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As only two of the ten included articles are for the individual articles on Penn and Teller, I'm not seeing how the "bulk" of its contents categorize people by project. Furthermore, is person by project really inappropriate categorization? That's different than person by performance, and I don't see how categorizing Penn and Teller by their ongoing partnership, which has largely defined their careers, is overcategorization here. Postdlf (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding your comment. If 80% of the categorized articles are for projects that the two worked on and since we would not for example categorize Penn & Teller Get Killed under Category:Penn & Teller films, how is categorizing their projects directly under them anything but categorizing projects by the people who performed in them? Categorizing projects by the people who worked on them is overcategorization because it sidesteps the consensus against such categorization. We would not categorize for example The Terminator in Category:Arnold Schwarzenegger films and so we also don't categorize it in Category:Arnold Schwarzenegger. Otto4711 (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you meant that this categorizes projects by people, not the other way around. But I'm not sure your film by actor analogy is on point, as the included articles are not just for otherwise unrelated series, films, etc., in which Penn & Teller appeared whether as stars or guest stars (such as a certain West Wing episode in which they played themselves), but rather for projects also produced, written, and/or named after Penn & Teller, reasonably definable as Penn & Teller projects. I'd consider this more analogous to a band category than an actor category. Postdlf (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but we would not, for example, categorize Ellen (TV series) The Ellen Show and The Ellen DeGeneres Show under either Category:Ellen DeGeneres television series or Category:Ellen DeGeneres. Same notion applies here. Otto4711 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But see Category:Oprah, or Category:Laurel and Hardy. Postdlf (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WAX. Oprah's shows shouldn't be categorized under her either. They should be in Category:Harpo Productions television series if anywhere. L&H's category does not contain any of their performances directly. They are categorized separately as a film series (something I also question since they were not a series but that's a nomination for another day). Otto4711 (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No position but ((Penn & Teller)) was created. If deleted, then someone needs to add categories to some articles where this one is the only category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:51, 26 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 21

OJ Simpson

Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region categories

Category:Songs about divorce

Category:Chrono Crusade

Category:Reading Abbey

Category:306 Entertainment albums

Category:Americans of German descent

Category:Fictional Americans by state

Category:Fictional Americans by ethnicity

Category:Americans favoring drug legalization

Category:Cultural economics

Category:Brand name potato chips, potato crisps, and other potato-based snack foods

Category:Educational institutions in Mobile, Alabama

Category:Hakka Hongkongers

Category:The School Heroes

Category:Windows PET icons

Category:Blues-rock ensembles

Category:Former Bahá'ís

Category:Penn & Teller