< January 17	January 19 >

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. Tiptoety ^talk 01:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete No page. Doubtful room for expansion. Mojodaddy (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Go Phone? As in AT&T's GoPhone - Prepaid mobile phone? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GoPhone is the name of the service, not the handsets. Replace the GoPhone SIM card with another one, and it's no longer a "GoPhone." -choster (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - accepting Choster's explanation to be true, this seems like an obvious delete. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:29, 21 January 2009 (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 and Salt. Based on the previous CfD and their apparent support here I see no reason for keeping. In the future any attempt at recreation should somehow strive to find a consensus, make on the CfD talk page before allowing recreation. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete More of a review of a newly re-created category. This was the subject of a CfD almost 2 years ago which was a solid delete as overly broad and overly vague. It was recreated and the subject of a second CfD 3 months later. The result was to delete the recreation and salt the category as it was determined to be inherently problematic over inclusion criteria. The salting was limited to a 1 year period a month later (expired July 14, 2008).
The recreation has a more limited criteria as spelled out in it's boilerplate. This includes some helpful limits:

"Include only fictional characters..."
"...not every fictional character who has ever time traveled." (one of the bigger issues with the previous CfDs)

But some of it is still questionable:

"...especially notable for time traveling..." begs for POV, OR, and/or a citation.
(example)"they time travel frequently" "Frequently" is vague... is it an elements for the character in a few stories? Some? Half? Many? Most? All? An individual editor's choice?
(example)"exist mostly out of their home timeline" This tends to lump two very distinct premises together - characters that, in the course of the story, move among multiple time periods by a device or power (ie the Doctor & the TARDIS or Hiro Nakamura) and characters that are dislocated from one period to another by a plot device but the travel is a one off, non recurring element (ie Buck Rogers (included) or Captain America (not included)).

J Greb (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC) (posted even though the Cat seems to have been speedied.)[reply]

keep is one way of characterizing fictional works therefore by extension the fictional people in it. Someone though does need to keep an eye on it as people will include all&sundry - As I have done upon realizing the Category had been created. Agathoclea (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category creator's rationale: Do Not Delete Notability is considered for the creation of every Wikipedia article and is not considered vauge. It is in the guidelines for categories that traits described by the category must be ones that are notably associated with the subject of the article included, I did not make this up. If my examples are vauge, any editor can edit them and I urge them to. And characters like Captain America unambiguously traveled through time in the normal fashion that all such entities subject to the physics of time travel through it, so I fail to see how whether he "time traveled" is vauge.

This category describes a legitimate defining trait of many characters, and should exist and be patrolled for innapropraite entries. I for one am eager to do that.

AvatarMN (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I fully agree with the nominator's rationale provided. Additionally, I don't see that anything has changed since the previous discussions that would warrant re-creation. The list seems to be accomplishing its purpose. (Note: I speedily deleted this as re-created material but then restored it at the request of nominator and the re-creator of the category.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters who manipulate time are not necessarily the same thing. They may erase or stop time, but not travel through it. -- AvatarMN (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a great reason to use lists, since the two would be commonly confused in categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that has changed is that in the previous CfD no one proposed patrolling, which is a sensible alternative to deletion that is employed all of the time. I propose patrolling. I will patrol. -- AvatarMN (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When authors create fictional characters they endow then with all of their characteristics. While some may be arbitrary, a characteristic such as the ability to travel through time is a strong defining characteristic. I never saw any validity to the prior efforts to disrupt the categorization of fictional characters in the past, and the justifications offered here are poor rationalizations for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the arguments previously raised against this category remain unanswered. That a character travels through time (once or even multiple times) is non-defining for the vast majority of such characters, The "creators endow their creations" foolishness is pure nonsense, since people beyond the initial creators of a particular character can and do contribute character traits and create story lines for those characters. Otto4711 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anyone can say that time travel is a vague term. It's not too vague to be the subject of an article, several lists, and a category:time travel in fiction (with seven sub-categories) without anyone trying to delete them. And I couldn't disagree more that for every character currently in the category, time traveling is absolutely a defining characteristic. All of them would be crucially different if they didn't time travel. Almost every major comic book character has time traveled at one point or another, but if it didn't make a notable impact on their identity, then by the guidelines they don't properly go in the category and should be removed. An argument that for most (weasel word) characters who've time traveled it's not a defining characteristic is an argument for enforcing the guidelines, not deletion. -- AvatarMN (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with a single editor determining the guidelines and patrolling an article space category. There honestly needs to be a air tight set of criteria in place and a consensus that it will work. And even if there is a consensus, the category right no lacks that air tight set of criteria.
Part of that criteria is nailing down how to judge that the "time traveler" aspect of the character is fundamental aspect/occupation/gimmick of the character. In some cases it is very, very easy (The Doctor, Marty and Doc Brown, or Hiro Nakamura are good examples). But the rest... they aren't that clear cut. Looking at what's in there currently, here are some of the problem points:
- Alex Drake and Sam Tyler - Given the write ups, no time travel is involved, the situation the characters are in is either a hallucination or near-death experience.
- Parallax (comics) - It's never spelled out how the time travel episode fits with the later retconning of the Parallax entity. At the time the original story was published, Hal Jordan alone was the time traveler.
- Peter Petrelli - A mimic "borrowing" another character's powers. It may be a significant plot point, but the time travel isn't a fundamental principle of the character.
- Ash Williams - One out of how many stories?
- Xindi (Star Trek) - A collection of species that were used as a cats-paw for a different species. They benefited from the manipulating species' ability to time travel, but weren't time travelers themselves.
- Superboy (Kal-El) - Again, how many of the stories featuring the character center around time travel? If this is due to a specific sub-set of stories, there are many more characters that sohuld also be included.
- Companion (Doctor Who) - Similar to the Superboy situation. If the category is appropriate for the umbrella article, then it is appropriate for each of the individual articles. Or it should be a parent cat for Category:Doctor Who companions, eliminating it from Jack Harkness and Sarah Jane Smith.
- Buck Rogers - The core premise is "dealing with being a man out of his own time" and as I pointed out above "time travel" (some variation of "slept in suspended animation for 500 years" which is a stretch of the term) only occurs at the start of the character's adventures. It isn't a focal theme.

This gives a feeling that there may be a set of criteria, but one that isn't being applied consistently. The reason the cat was downed originally was that the consensus was that, in a category, the criteria could not be applied consistently. - J Greb (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get why in this category's case, "time travel" is too vague for it to possibly work when so many other articles, lists, and categories do. If you know that a character included in the category doesn't work, then take them out. Ash Williams is the weakest here, you're right. I don't know a lot about him so I didn't pounce. If Buck Rogers was only in suspended animation, then him too. Sub-categories often fall into categories, so I don't see why the main Doctors' companions article is innapropriate, and Jack Harkness and Sarah Jane Smith have lives outside of their role as the Doctor's companion. If they were all listed, they would outnumber the non-Doctors' companions and make the article less useful. Superboy time travelled in hundreds of Legion of Superheroes stories. Peter Petrelli's visits to the future have driven the show's plot. Sam Tyler and Alex Drake's situations may be something else, but they think it's time travel and the evidence points more toward it. They self-identify as time travelers? I recall the Xindi coming from the future to kill the Federation before they could kill them, but if I'm wrong, then mea culpa and the article can be removed. See? This category can work if it's given the chance to be a work in progress like every other category is, be allowed to exist even though mistakes may be made and corrected, like every other category does. -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me it'd be better to make the category:Doctor Who companions a subcat to category:Fictional time travelers, and remove "companion (Doctor Who) from the cat. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt enough is enough. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it curious people get so heated about this one category being soooo vague when a dozen time travel articles, lists, and categories exist completely unopposed. Getting so huffy that they say things like "enough is enough" when the last salting is a hefty year and a half expired. Wanting this category is really so outrageous? What makes this category different? -- AvatarMN (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting it is less outrageous than recreating it without going to the community to take our temperature or even beginning to address the reasons in the first place. Neither of which was or has been done. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The salting was long expired, and I asked the previous CfD's closing admin himself to unblock it so I could recreate it. I tried to open discussion on the category's talk page the moment I restarted the category. I thought I was doing it right. I find it outrageous that "editors might get it wrong" is rationale for deletion when Wikipedia exists at all as an encyclopedia anyone can edit. That's rationale for deleting everything if it's rationale for deleting anything. Further edits can fix the wrongs. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this catagory is going to exist then every character from every fictional book should be added to the catagory because technicaly every person travels through time (eg me from 10.23 and 20 sec to 10.23 and 40 sec is ttravelling forwards in time). Also the Xindi dont travel themselves, they just have technology from the furture. rdunn PLIB 10:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your advisement, I call emergency and slap you with a trout. You know that the definition of "time travel" in this context doesn't mean at the normal rate, and isn't limited to inherent power and not use of technology. If you didn't, you wouldn't have contradicted yourself by applying violations to your critera in the comment about Xindi that followed. Upon discussion, Xindi were removed from the category, which is as it should be and how all categories survive. -- AvatarMN (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2009 (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

Reading over the below, this was rather obviously an argument (I hestiate to call the below anything close to a civilised term as "debate") about presumed meanings and presumed intentions, and a large amount of presumptive confusion all around.

(I personally think that all present might find a read of Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial - and possibly WP:AGF - to be helpful.)

Trying to assess the intent from the semantics and sentence context has been "interesting". After several re-readings, I went through and just read each person's comments as a whole, then went on to the next person's, in an attempt to get an idea of each person's "position" that they were apparently putting forth.

A big part of the problem is that this category has (at least) two issues that pop up at Wikipedia:Words to avoid. WP:TERRORIST (a subsection of that page) and, "Words that label". Those discussing seem to mostly fall into concerns of one of the two of these (or both). And applicability of whether an purported ethnicity + "terrorist" could be a category. There's also the ethnicity?/nationality?/needs a country? discussions as well.

To put it bluntly: It's a royal mess. And not likely to get any better under the current situation.

Hence, "no consensus".

The closure aside for a moment, if there is still a wish to move forward on this, I might personally suggest that those interested have a discussion somewhere about the terms involved. (Sri Lanka, Tamil, terrorist, nation, ethnicity, country, etc.) Figure out what best describes the group of individuals in question, and how to connect the terms together less than ambiguously, then return here with the results of that discussion (linking to it) in a nomination here. It doesn't have to be a unanimous result. (I've seen a discussion pare down several dozen options to 3, then bring them here for "final" discussion.) This last paragraph, is, as I mention above, not part of the closure, but merely a suggestion for those interested. I hope it helps. - jc37 07:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Tamil is an ethnic group, not a nationality. There is no need to subdivide below the nationality level. We have no Category:Marathi_terrorist, Category:Gujarati_terrorist, Category:Sinhalese_terrorist, Category:Maya_terrorist, Category:Bavarian_terrorist, Category:Scottish_terrorist, Category:Basque_terrorist or anyhting like that either.

Furthermore, membership in an ethnicity is difficult to establish. Nationality is much easier to establish, and clear-cut.
Jasy jatere (talk)

Strong Indisputable Keep. Jasy jatere is simply wrong. We do have the Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Basque paramilitaries and Category:Kurdish terrorists and Category:Quebec terrorists though none of these is a nationality by his narrow definition. If one expands the definition of nationality to include people like Palestinians who have no nation, but have national aspirations, it is quite clear that Tamil is a nationality. The Tamil Tigers and their suicide-bombing wing Black Tigers are recognized by 32 nations as a terrorist organization; they have massacred thousands of civilians. This deletion nomination is an attempt to whitewash their actions. Administrative intervention is needed because of the POV-pushing going on on articles about militants notable only for their brutality.[1] For example, the only sentence in Thambirasa Kuhasanthan's article notes that he was in charge of suicide bombing, yet editors are whitewashing the category. THF (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC), updated 05:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC), updated 19:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please assume good faith and no personal attacks. You may have violated both by calling my edit a white wash. In the so called white wash (quoting you) edit of the article Pulendran was virtually written by me and I cited his alleged involvement in the massacre. All what you did was a a copy edit to conform to WP:Notability. The edit in question was in keeping with another wikipedia rule Nuetrality. Also I was giving you a way out of the situation you had put yourself in. I wrote that you could replace a racist category with what conforms the requirements of the requirements of nationality. Anyway sorry to observe that one wrong does not make another wrong right. Kurdish terrorists should be deleted. Basque paramilitaries are not equal to Basque terrorists. You are totally wrong about the Palestinians being an ethnic group. They are a nationality. Also cool down and happy editing.:)Taprobanus (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attack here is yours: you called the creation of a legitimate category "racist." I am extremely offended by that personal insult of my motivations and that repeated false characterization of my edits. It is especially offensive because the claim is extraordinarily incorrect. Why do the Tamils have a nationalist movement if they're not a nationality? THF (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call you racist, but the category is racist. Period. Is Timothy Mcveigh an American terrorists or White American terrorists. To tag him a White American terrorist is racist. Is it that hard to figure this out. For a "non involved" editor you seem to know a lot about Tamils, Tamil nationalism and Tamil net :)) but anyway I am not obliged to answer hypothetical questions here. Tamils are either Indian, Sri Lankan, Malaysian, American .... nationality not Tamil nationality. They are an ethnic group. Taprobanus (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tamil Tigers article describes them as a nationalist movement. I imagine if you sought to edit that article to portray them as a racial movement, there would be fireworks. THF (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anyway, to correct these wild lapses of logic, this is what is happening. A minority of Tamil Sri Lankans (the Tamil tigers) are fighting the Sinhala (another ethnicity) to get a nation. The LTTE are opposed by many Tamils who have seen the destruction in the name of Tamil Eelam wrought by the LTTE (Douglas Devananda, Colonel Karuna). Just because a group wants a nation, does not make them national. Also, Kurds constitute a nation, because they arguably have their own "country" (Kurdistan), but not only that, the only terrorists in the Kurdish category are Kurds in al-Qaeda, not even members of the PKK, which is a far more accurate analogy to the LTTE The Kurdish terrorist category should not exist either actually, I have placed its articles in more appropriate categories an put deletion notices on the category.Pectore^talk 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category says it should be by nationality. Tamils are an multi-national group. They are Indian, Sri Lankan, Malaysian, American, Canadian. If a Canadian of Tamil descent is categorized as a terrorits then he/she is a Canadian terrorits. Similarly Category:Palestinian terrorists is appropriate because Palestinian is a Nationality not an ethnic group. Is Baruch Goldstein a Jewish terrorists or an Israeli terrorist? I would argue calling him a Jewish terrorist is racism. Taprobanus (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The tone taken by a certain user in this and related discussions has been alarmingly offensive. The logic here is that the LTTE is listed as terrorist, so its members are necessarily terrorists. Next they are also listed as Sri Lankan or Canadian terrorists. So this category, is not only racist as Taprobanus has stated, but should be deleted per WP:OCAT. Also the comparison to the Basque paramilitary fails, because even groups working with the SLA against the LTTE are sometimes described as paramilitary (see TMVP for an example). As for ludicrous allegations of POV-pushing, THF is far off the mark. Nobody opposing him supports the LTTE, the only thing we support is neutral descriptions and articles on who the LTTE are.Pectore^talk 03:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The members who massacre 137 innocent civilians for the crime of being bus passengers are terrorists. The member whose only claim to notability is that he is in charge of suicide bombing is a terrorist. Don't confuse your POV-pushing with whether a category should be deleted. The three delete !votes here demonstrate precisely why we need this category. THF (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My POV-pushing? Again, I document what the LTTE has done, even though I oppose them, which is quite evident from my edits. We aren't debating whether people that massacre others are terrorists (considering I am filling up the category Category:Sri Lankan terrorists, you are arguing against yourself there) but whether categorization by ethnicity is legitimate, which you have not satisfactorily proven amid your displays of pugnacious commentary and Mccarthyism.Pectore^talk 04:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have Category:Sri Lankan terrorists, which seems to cover all the individuals. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we did not have that category until after this nomination was made. And that is a poor reason for supporting this nomination--do you realize the firestorm that would arise if I went and violated WP:POINT by substituting all of the "Palestinian terrorist" categorizations with "Jordanian terrorist" and "Egyptian terrorist" and "Kurdish terrorist" with "Turkish terrorist"? Where are the deletion nominations for those non-nations? THF (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THF, you are wrong again, I created the Sri Lankan terrorits category many years ago and it was deleted after a SLR discussion. It has only being recreated. Also one does not have to recretae Palestinain terrorits because Palestinian is a nationality. So your argument fails again. Taprobanus (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one article in the Category:Tamil_terrorist, K._Dharmarajah. THF has proposed that article for deletion, but defends the category. That looks a bit schizophrenic to me, since empty categories will be deleted anyway. At the same time, he complains that the Category:Tamil_terrorist is insidiously replaced by Category:Srilankan_terrorist. If TamTer was a huge category, I could maybe understand that, but as small as it is today, I think that the creation of a Category:CountryX_Terrorist according to the overall structure of the categories is commendable at any point in time, be it before, during of after a related AfD. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew the AFD nomination for K. Dharmarajah, who is notable for his Tamil terrorist activities. I see about thirty articles eligible for the category, but given that every time I add the legitimate category, I get called a racist and have the addition reverted by a team of three or four editors, I'm not going to make futile additions until administrators intervene to stop the POV-pushing. THF (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would definitely help if you took away the AfD template then... ;-) Jasy jatere (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means please do so. Since you cannot get it into your head that half of the people opposing you are anti-LTTE themselves maybe it would certainly do you good to cool off. Your implicit assumptions that an entire "multinational ethnicity" are inherently predisposed to terrorism are despicable.Pectore^talk 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment It is true that the LTTE are a regarded as terrorist by an important number of countries. It is also true that the Black Tigers conduct suicide attacks. No doubt about that. People involved in those actions should be categorized as Category:LTTE_member, Category:Black_Tiger, and Category:Terrorist and Category:Sri_Lankan_Terrorist if they pass WP:TERRORIST. I think everyone agrees that they should not be characterized as Category:Jaffna_terrorist, Category:Christian_terrorist, or Category:Heterosexual_terrorist. Neither should they be categorized as Tamil_terrorist. Fighting for a homeland with terrorist tactics is not tied to belonging to the ethnic group of that homeland. Argentinian Che Guevara, of Caucasian race, fought for a rebel movement in Congo, for instance.Jasy jatere (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Would the supporters of Category:Tamil_terrorist also be favourable of the creation of a Category:Sinhala_terrorist, where one could add Rohana Wijeweera for instance? (just using RW as an example here, not claiming that he is definitely a terrorist) Or is RW Sri Lankan and not Sinhalese, whereas Dharmarajah is Tamil but not Sri Lankan? Jasy jatere (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This group is recognized as a terrorist organization by 32 nations. Just because this category may be controversial, does not make it any less notable.WackoJacko (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not entirely clear what you are talking about. Did you read the rationale for deleting? I suppose you mean the LTTE by "this group". This CfD is actually about the Category:Tamil_terrorists, not about the LTTE. Everyone agrees that the LTTE is a terrorist organization and should be covered as such in wikipedia. The controversy is not the "terrorist" part, but the "Tamil" part, which does not fit in the overall category structure of wp. This CfD will not change anything in the LTTE page being tagged as Category:Terrorism and Category:Organizations_designated_as_terrorist. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear as to why he is confused. He came here because of canvassing as evident by this conversation about POV pushers, terrorist supporters, and terrorist supporting cabalists:)) Taprobanus (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —WackoJacko (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Tamils are ethnic group and I would favour Sri Lankan Terrorist rather than Tamil terrorist further it is extremely POV and changes with time.As with the ANC was terrorist organisation and Nelson MandelaU.S. was on terrorist list of the USA Now it has changed with him a Nobel Prize Winner and ANC a democratic party and So Was Yasser Arafat.Further THF we are not whom to determine who is a terrorist and who is not .In the Sri Lankan Civil War none of the killing massacres have been proven and no one has gone to jail for that not one of the 70000 old killing.Look LTTE like ANC,PLO etc have been called for International Peace talks and its members have been allowed free travel across the globe now post 9/11 there has been crackdown on all armed groups worldwide and countries Like India,Sri Lanka and Norway have accepted them as Tamil representives in the past atleast.Further Bans are a complex issue in South Asia .Members of formerly banned parties have Prime Ministers ,Chief Ministers including the current one in Eastern Province in Sri Lanka. Karuna was allgedly responsible for many of the killing in the East when he was the head of the LTTE he was arrested and jailed in UK for passport forgery and was deported back to Sri Lanka and is made an MP by the ruling party as I say terrorist here is very complex here.JVP was terrorist outfit and later part of the ruling coliation and hence better to avoid it Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' This reasoning is incoherent. First, the category has strong protections against POV-pushing. Second, there are thirty other related categories of types of terrorists of various nationalities, and no one is calling for their deletion. Why do the Tamil Tigers, among the most brutal of terrorists in the world, get special consideration? THF (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for deletion. We are again, for perhaps the 100th or 3000th time, not debating whether the LTTE (Tamil tigers) are terrorist, we are debating whether "Tamil terrorists" is a legitimate category, when the connection between ethnicity and terrorism is spurious at best.Pectore^talk 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is the logical continuation of having race/ethnicity categories like Category:Tamil people. If you like those, you must like this too. I for one think they are all WP:OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This is garbage, to create a ethnolinguistic category and list down organizations and individuals. We don't have KKK listed under English terrorists and Kashmiri militants listed under Dogri terrorists. The mention about the list of countries that have banned the Tigers is way more than sufficient. One cannot go on trumpeting this. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This category is not only redundant but seems to be racist also. Tamil is a language and it is spoken by million of people around the world. The argument to keep the category is basically because since LTTE is composed of of Tamil speaking people, then they are Tamil Terrorists and the category should exists. Must I remind people that wikipedia has a list of words to [avoid] ? This list clearly says that one should not be called a Terrorist in the article, and if there is WP:RS that claim they are terrorist then If a reliable source describes a person, group or action using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears. So a category called Tamil Terrorist should not even have been created per wikipedia guidelines. So let's please stick to wikipedia rules and have this category deleted. Watchdogb (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several dozen "* terrorists" categories, including Jewish terrorism. There is a Tamil people category, and no one is calling that racist. Yet only the Tamil terrorists are beyond being categorized as such, apparently. THF (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What you fail to mention is that all of them except few that don’t conform to the Terrorists by nationality requirements are by Nationality. We have proved that Palestinian category is legitimate as they are nationality. Kurdish nationality should go, so should Basque. Jewish terrorism is an appalling category. I can understand Zionist terrorism or Israeli terrorist but Jewish terrorism? I don’t support it at all. Taprobanus (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break[edit]

Strong keep - what is surprising is that THF has laid out the most rational, clear reasons for keeping this category, and his arguments go ignored; instead, the deletes are raising more fallacious arguments. Are we to eliminate Category:Basque paramilitaries because they are, in reality, Spanish? Yes, Tamil is a language (as is Basque), and like the Basque people, there are also a Tamil people (or should we delete that article?) Lastly, the Tamil Tigers are one of the most known terrorist groups/freedom fighters (pick your POV) in the world, and its members certainly use terrorism as a tactic. It's almost like the deletes are devoid of reality, and certainly guilty of not addressing the validity of the arguments for keeping. The deletes appear to be nothing more than POV. --David Shankbone 00:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Would you now support creating terrorist subcategories by religious orientation, sexual orientation, and by their zip codes as well? Who ever created the terrorists by nationality category very sensibly made the right call to stop it at nationality not to drag it down to race origins of the terrorist. Taprobanus (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Tamil is a nationality--indeed there are three separate articles about Tamil nationalism on Wikipedia. This entire nomination, and every single one of the delete !votes, is based on a false premise. THF (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As usual you are off the mark again, Tamil nationalism does not equate to Tamil nation. Tamils are not a nationality, they are an ethnic group unlike Americans, Canadians. African American nationalism does not make them an African American nation. They are still Americans. I am yet to come across a Tamil nationality in pass ports, Tamil national anthems, Tamil national postage stamps, have you ?Taprobanus (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you prove my point. Your argument would exclude the category Palestinian (and Kurdish and Basque) terrorists, because there are no Palestinian national postage stamps or passports. THF (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So soory to dissapoint you, Palestinians have their seat in the UN and also their passports. That is if you care to refer outside Wikipedia. Tamils dont have a seat in the UN nor to Kurds. These are ethnic groups not nationalities. Taprobanus (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taprobanus So, are you now in favor of deleting the category for Kurdish terrorists? Your arguments seem to go around in circles. Also your source says: "The government plans to accept passports issued by the Palestinian Authority as valid documents for entering Japan while maintaining its position of not recognizing the authority as a legitimate state, a source close to the government said Thursday.." Additionally, the passports issued to Palestinians are jointly issued by Israel and the Palestinian AuthorityWackoJacko (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taprobanus Please read: "The Jordan Times also reported that: "Palestinians claim that donor countries, including the United States, would accept the passport as a 'travel document and not as a nationality." (Jordan Times, 25 Jan. 1995)."^[1]WackoJacko (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support creating a category called Jewish terrorists ? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, there are three articles: one dab, Sri_Lankan_Tamil_nationalism and Tamil nationalism (India). The latter two are distinct phenomena. Lumping them together in one category can not be in the interest of wikipedia. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Short version: There are to many Tamils outside of Sri Lanka to have "Tamil" only refer to the Sri Lankan situation. Long version: OK, I saw this coming, now we get to ethnographic detail. The problem with especially "Tamil" in this case is that there are about 55 million Tamils in India (not involved in the Sri Lankan conflict), and maybe 3 million Tamil speakers in Sri Lanka, which are made up of Sri Lankan Tamils, Sri Lankan Indian Tamils and Sri Lankan Moors. If we create a category Tamil_terrorist, the "Tamil"-part will apply to at least the former three groups, and possibly the fourth as well. Suppose one of the terrorrists in the recent Bombay attacks was a Tamil-speaking Indian Muslim (which is not too far fetched an idea. You can also pick any other terrorist attack you like, there are enough of them in India.) That person gets tagged as Tamil_Terrorist. The rest of his terrorist gang, however, are Gujaratis and Bengalis. To be coherent, we need to create Gujarati_Terrorist and Bengali_terrorist. Next is Tribal_terrorist, Assamese_terrorist, you get the picture. Especially nice if you get mixed marriages. Anyone in need of Bengali-Gujarati-mixed-marriage-terrorist? There are reasons why ethnicities are not used to categorize people, they are too difficult to establish.

One could claim that Tamil_terrorist should only apply to persons who want to establish a homeland for the Tamils with terrorist means, similar to the Basque case. This is quite problematic for the Tamil case, since 90% of them do have a homeland, Tamil Nadu. That reading would then be nonsensical. Better have an explicit category Sri_Lankan_Tamil_terrorist then, which should not lend itself to misunderstandings.

However, Sri_Lankan_Tamil_terrorist would still not be precise, since the Sri Lankan Indian Tamils and the Moors generally are not partisans of the idea of Tamil Eelam, but could be terrorists for another cause. If you can find a good name to cover the portion of Tamils who can reasonable be believed to be interested in the creation of Tamil Eelam, while leaving out the 95% of Tamils for whom that concept does not apply, be my guest and create the category GoodNameYouFound_terrorists. "Tamil"_Terrorist as it is now just does not serve the purpose of categorization, but is a misnomer.

To be maximally precise: "does not apply" means "are not the target group". This is different from "could be in the target group, but oppose for other reasons"

Categorization is there to make wikipedia fit for semantic searches. Sloppy categorization like this one undermines that purpose.

Since this debate gets quite heated, and people tend to get associated with opinions they never have uttered, let me state that I do think that the LTTE members should be tagged as terrorists. But the computational linguist in me screams that the "Tamil" part in there is a very very bad idea. Jasy jatere (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Jasy has hit the mark. Tamils in Sri Lanka are a diverse group with most of the Tamil community not even remotely associate with the Tigers (Sri Lankan Indian Tamils identify more with unionists like Arumugam Thondaman, while Moors were victims of genocide at the hands of the Tamil Tigers). The terrorists of the LTTE are terrorists because they were members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; being Tamil has little to do with it. Categorizing them as "Sri Lankan terrorists" is legitimate, since they are, by nationality, Sri Lankan and commit terrorist acts. Sri Lankan is a nationality that can accurately be proven, while Tamil as an ethnicity cannot. For those still drowning in ignorance and quick to attack knowledgeable users as pov pushers; we are not debating whether the Tamil tigers are terrorist (they are), but whether this category, which intersects ethnicity with a negative action is justified", which it isnt.Pectore^talk 02:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Logical fallacies in the delete !votes: 1) people are arguing that nation = country. It does not. 2) Just because a category exists identifying particular terrorists belonging to the Tamil nationality, that it is somehow saying all members are terrorists. That logic could be applied to any of the Terrorists by nationality categories. 3) That the existence of such a category somehow makes a political statement about the Sri Lankan Civil War or racism. The logic on this AfD is all over the place and has little cohesion. --David Shankbone 05:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree with David Jasy jatere (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@David Shankbone, well said.WackoJacko (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break 2[edit]

Delete This is pointless verbage. No need to open cans of worms, attaching ethnicity to gotcha terms like terrorism. The google hits don't mean what they use to. There is a lot of false hits by crawled by google. I don't see the point of using the word terrorism. How does the argument go forward ? Is it necessary. This has not been shown by anybody yet. Whose terrorist ? Then we have the people on prolonged hiatus come around to stirr up the pot. --Sinhala freedom (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, regarding the nominator's rational, the reason they need to be broken down by a criteria other than nationality is the said "Tamil Terrorists" don't identify themselves as belonging to a specific nationality. Their ideology is Tamil nationalism. They identify themselves as Tamils, not Sri Lankans. That's what they are fighting for. Secondly, ethnicity is very easy to establish is Sri Lanka, even more so than nationality. Just check any article about a Tamil person on Wikipedia, and it'll start off "xxx is/was a minority Tamil...". It even provides your ethnicity on your birth certificate. You can change nationalities, but you can't change your ethnicity. Also, there are Indian Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamils[2], even British Tamils [3] fighting for and supporting the LTTE. They are best identified simply as "Tamil terrorists", rather than "Sri Lankan Tamil terrorists", "Indian Tamil terrorists", "British Tamil terrorists" and whatnot.

And there are countless reliable sources that identify these people as "Tamil Terrorists", examples [4][5][6]. And seriously, they are the "TAMIL tigers". Not the "Sri Lankan tigers". Not the "freedom movement of Eelam". Not the "kill all Sinhalas inc". They are the Tamil Tigers. They identify themselves as Tamil. Everything about them is about been Tamil. They call themselves Tamil freedom fighters, they're fighting for a Tamil state, for Tamil independence, their leader is called the Tamil national leader. Hence they are best categorized as "Tamil Terrorists" --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should inform Surjit Singh Barnala, the governor of Tamil Nadu, and his chief minister Muthuvel Karunanidhi that Prabhakaran is the leader of all Tamils. They will surely be delighted to quit their offices and pledge allegiance to Veluppillai. To be more serious, Prabhakaran claims to be the leader of the Sri Lankan Tamils, not of all Tamils. But when he speaks in Sri Lanka, he can leave out the specification since it is clear from context what country he is refering to. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, give Mr. Barnala a call at 91-44-25670099 [7]. Just like the Tamil Tigers call the north and east of Sri Lanka their "Tamil state", the "Tamil National Leader" claim doesn't have to be true. They just identify themselves as such, and they are the only notable people to do so.

And I'd be very impressed if you managed to get Prabhakaran to speak Sinhala. Just fyi, like most successionist Tamils, he probably will deny he can speak Sinhalese. That's a trait you'll find common amongst most Tamils who are fighting for the LTTE, and those who ran away from Sri Lanka. The Tamils who decided to stay in their (multi-ethnic) country, and who are rather happy about the impending destruction of the LTTE, are the only Tamils you'll find who willingly speak Sinhalese.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you are totaly off on this. LTTE's nationalism is not Tamil Nationalism it is Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism. They are not fighting for a Tamil Nationalistic state, they are fighting for a Tamil Eelam or Sri Lankan Tamil nationalistic state. Besides this argument is not germaine anyway. The creators of the Terrorists by nationalility meant that is it by nationality. Tamils are a multi-national erhnic group unlike Palestinians. They are not a nationality. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the other terrorism categories. Someone created categories for Terrorists by nationality, that's fine. If we want to create a few categories by ethnicity, that's fine too. To answer your first point, the LTTE is not restricted to Sri Lankan Tamils. There are Indian Tamils, Australian Tamils, British Tamils, American Tamils and Tamils of a variety of nationalities involved in their movement. For example not everyone involved in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination were Sri Lankans, but they were all Tamils.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that there is fundamentally a difference between terrorits by nationality and terrorists by ethinicity. Tamil Terrorists category is Terrorists by ethinicity, well next we will create terrorists by sexual orientation, zip code and what else ? right handed cricket loving terrorists versus left handed terrorists. Either we stick to terrorist by nationality or not. Taprobanus (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but says who? Who decided we stick to "terrorist by nationality"? If a more suitable category can be applied to these people, then it certainly should be. We have a category for Category:Islamist terrorists, and Islam is not a country. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point. Category:Islamist terrorist{note is not Islamic terrorist it is Islamist} come under Category:Islamic terrorism, and it is part of a sub category of category:Religious terrorism. Similarly Category:Sri lankan terrorits, comes under Category:Terrorists by nationality which is a sub category of Category:People by occupation and nationality. If you guys want to create a category called category:Tamil terrorits then we will go on to create a category called Category:terrorits by ethnic group and we will create categories called Sinhala terrorits, Jewish terrorists, White terrorits, Black Terrorists, Native American terrorits, Navajo terrorists, Latino terrorits, Tex-mex terrorists, Mayan terrorists, Swiss-German terrorists, Galician terrorits, Magyar terrorists, Walloon terrorists, why stop let's create a million terrorits by ethnic origin categories and have this interesting discussion every week in Wikipedia. 16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Islamist terrorists comes directly under Category:Terrorists because Islam isn't a "country" and therefore the Category should't come under Category:Terrorists by nationality. You seem to have ignored that point in your argument above. As for categorizing terrorists from other ethnic groups, if they commit acts of terrorism based on their ethnic ideologies, then we most certainly can create such categories. However, none of these groups have people commiting terrorism under their name. Just because an ethnicity exists, it doesn't mean we need to make a category for them. Only if the need exists to create such a category do we do so. You need to understand that. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ::::::::: Taprobanus So, are you now in favor of deleting the category for Kurdish terrorists? Your arguments seem to go around in circles. Also your source says: "The government plans to accept passports issued by the Palestinian Authority as valid documents for entering Japan while maintaining its position of not recognizing the authority as a legitimate state, a source close to the government said Thursday.." Additionally, the passports issued to Palestinians are jointly issued by Israel and the Palestinian AuthorityWackoJacko (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taprobanus Please read: "The Jordan Times also reported that: "Palestinians claim that donor countries, including the United States, would accept the passport as a 'travel document and not as a nationality...' '" (Jordan Times, 25 Jan. 1995)."^[2]WackoJacko (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

summary (personal): the following threads of the discussion miss the point

The LTTE are bloodthirsty terrorists vs Thou shalt not call people terrorists. This is not what this CFD is about. It is not about the terrorist part of the category
the keep voters are racist vs the delete voters are POV pushers. This does not contribute to a solution

The most interesting argument, in my o, pininon is Groups which aspire to have a nation-state should be treated as if they were a nation-state. Cases in point are Basques and Kurds. I am not sure if this position is consensus within wikipedia, but that can be determined in future discussions. The question is then: "Are Tamils are group which aspire to have a nation-state?" The answer to this question for Tamils as a whole is clearly no. 55 million Tamils in India live in a territory that would not form part of the territory claimed for the nation-state. That is more than 90%. This is different from Basques and Kurds, where a great majority live within the claimed areas. The group for which the nation state is claimed are are the Sri Lankan Tamils. The correct analogy to the Basque and Kurd case would then be Category:Sri_Lankan_Tamil_terrorists. I have not made up my mind about that category yet, but one thing is sure: Tamil_terrorist is too general and a misnomer.Jasy jatere (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasy, as I said above, the problem with such a category is there are Indian Tamils, British Tamils, American Tamils[8], Canadian Tamils[9] and a variety of other Tamils of different nationalities that support the LTTE. The thing they have in common is their ethnicity, i.e. being Tamil. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Ann Wilby, Peter Schalk, are these Tamil terrorist ? because they support the LTTE ? Taprobanus (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Jasy's comment above, It is not about the terrorist part of the category. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, what they have in common is that they are supporters of the LTTE. That is what defines their kind of terrorism, not the fact that they happen to be of Tamil ancestry. Balasingham's wife is of Caucasian race, Australian/UK national, and has no blood links with Tamils, but obvious ideological links. Do you want to tag her as Tamil_freedom-fighter? Obviously not. She should be tagged as LTTE_member, Terrorist/Freedomfighter, Activist, Australian, and a bunch of other things, but definitely not Tamil. The ideological adherence to the ideas of the LTTE is not congruent with Tamil ethnicity. There are Tamils who do not care about the LTTE, and there are supporters of the LTTE who are not Tamil. So the category name should not pretend that it was otherwise. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not at any point say that Bala's wife carried out terrorist attacks. Secondly, I believe the purpose of categorization such as this is to include all these articles in the same category. The question isn't should we have categories based on ethnicity or nationality. It's how should we categorize them such that all the articles are included in a commmon category. As I've pointed out, Balasingham himself was a British citizen, so he wouldn't be in a Sri Lankan Terrorists category. He would, however be in the Tamil Terrorists category beacuse he is a Tamil.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was he convicted of terrorism charges or it is simply what you want to brand him as. Taprobanus (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second time I'm posting this,To quote Jasy's comment above, It is not about the terrorist part of the category. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowolf, in the same way there are Egyptian Arabs, Jordanian Arabs, Syrian Arabs, Qatari Arabs and others who support the people and groups in Palestinian terrorists. So should we start categorising people like Wafa Idris as Arab terrorists? -- Arvind (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break 3[edit]

Keep. Category:Sri Lankan terrorists simply does not describe these individuals; quite the opposite, in fact. They are Tamil nationalists—it doesn't really matter that they don't have a nation—that's the whole point of their activities. Cool Hand Luke 18:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have a French minority in Quebec and they have Quebec nationalism. In France they have French nationalism. If a Quebec French nationalist commits a terrorist crime. Is he a French terrorist or Canadian terrorist ? Do understand Tamil Tigers don’t represent the Tamil people or their nationalism. They an obcure organization from a small obscure country fighting for an ethnic minority that has fellow ethnic members across the globe and most noticeably in India. When 99.9 of Tamils have nothing do with this, how can you call it an ethnic category ? It has to be Sri Lankan Tamil or Sri Lankan terrorist not Tamil terrorists. It is misleading at the best.Taprobanus (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Quebecois separatists start engaging in terrorism to promote separatism such that there would be articles about notable Quebecois terrorists, no one would have any objection to a Quebecois terrorists category. No one claims that the Tamil Tigers represent all of the Tamil people any more than the PKK represents the Kurds or Baruch Goldstein represents the Jews. But even if they did, it would not make the "Tamil terrorist" category any less legitimate within the context of the 50+ categories of terrorism by nationality. THF (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing with me that if French Canadians are to be listed as terrorist then they will be listed as French Canadian terrorist or Quebecois terrorists. That is exactly my point Tamil Tigers do no represent Tamil nationalism just like French Canadians don’t represent French Nationalism. Tamil Tigers represent Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism so how can you term them up as Tamil terrorist at the most they are Sri Lankan Tamil terrorist or Sri Lankan terrorist. Because calling them Tamil terrorist is to equal to call in a French Canadian terrorist as a French terrorist. At least we are getting somewhere. In similar veins, Baruch is not a Jewish terrorist he is an Israeli terrorist. In summary Sri Lankan Tamils are similar to French Canadians. Tamil people are equal to French People. Same ethnicities different countries. French Canadian separatist terrorist group FLQ is similar to LTTE. FLQ members cannot be termed as French terrorists, they are French Canadian or Canadian terrorists. Similarly LTTE terrorist cannot be termed as Tamil terrorist they have to Sri Lankan Tamil terrorist or Sri Lankan terrorist. Taprobanus (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If identifiable fringe ethnic groups were trying to commit terrorism against Canada on behalf of their ethnicity, it would be strange to classify them as Canadian terrorists—I doubt that reliable sources would call them "Canadian terrorists," just as reliable sources in our universe don't call these people "Sri Lankan terrorists." In your hypothetical, we would call them whatever they're called in that alternate universe. Perhaps "Quebecois terrorists," who knows. In this universe there are such things as ethnically Tamil terrorists, who happen to be called "Tamil terrorists," so that's what we call them—as an encyclopedia, we follow reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 19:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above, we already have French Candian terrorist group FLQ. Taprobanus (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Category:Quebec terrorists existed all along. You're just proving the point that this is a legitimate category. THF (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, none of the Quebec terrorists are listed under category:French terrorists are they ? No they are listed under Category:Quebec terrorists which is a sub category of Category:Canadian terrorists. Similarly Sri Lankan Tamil terrorists should be listed under Category:Sri Lankan Tamil terrorists as a sub category under category:Sri Lankan terrorists not category:Tamil terrorists. Cool luke I hope I have made you see the error of not calling Quecbec terrorits as canadian terrorits because taht is what sensible Wikipedians have done in the past. Taprobanus (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? CHL is precisely right -- every Quebecois terrorist is cat'd as a Quebec terrorist, not as a Canadian terrorist. THF (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the bottom of page [[Category:Quebec_terrorists]]. You see "Ca Categories: Canadian terrorists | People from Quebec by occupation". Every Quebec terrorist inherits the Category Canadian terrorist. Jasy jatere (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will say it again, every Quebecois terrorist is cat'd as a Quebec terrorist and it is a sub category of Canadian terrorist. Similarly all Sri lankan tamil terrorits can be listed under Sri lankan tamil terrorist which is a sub category of Sri Lankan terrorits. Taprobanus (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh. To my knowledge, Quebec isn't a nation. I've learned a little about this universe (that there are Quebec terrorists (!)), and Wikipedia is still based on reliable sources. Reliable sources say "Tamil terrorists." Gerrymandering them out of our policies doesn't make any sense—we have no policies or guidelines saying that people must be referred to by their nationality and not ethnicity. We've got Kurds, Jews, Basques, and even the Quebecois—good find. There are a lot of votes here, but is there even a single reason to delete this category based on our policies? I saw a claim of overcategorization, but replacing this category with the absurd substitute "Sri Lankan terrorist" doesn't really help.Cool Hand Luke 21:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, we do have a guideline against using ethnicity, Wikipedia:CATGRS, so you have learnt one more thing. I wouldn't invoke that guideline here, but it exists. Jasy jatere (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of that. It doesn't have any bearing here, as even you admit. Don't you think it's irregular to demand deletion without even citing a policy? Cool Hand Luke 17:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to categorize "Tamil terrorists" as a sub category of "Sri Lankan terrorist," I think that's a reasonable request. We can do that without deleting the category, without editing any articles, and—most importantly—without defying the mass of reliable sources that call these people Tamil terrorists (not Sri Lanken). Cool Hand Luke 21:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accoring to the government of Canada Quebecois are a nation but Sri Lankan Tamils are not a nation. Taprobanus (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Quebec terrorists seem to have died before Quebec was a nation. Also consider Palestine, which did not exist 1945-1988, and arguably not even after then. This isn't a grounds for deciding categorization—the best criteria is to follow whatever logical divisions are made by reliable sources. That's what we do—we follow reliable sources rather than trying to shoehorn articles into categories that aren't even known in existing literature. Cool Hand Luke 17:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 239 Gnews-hits and 14,400 Ghits for "Tamil terrorists." 628 Google books hits, only a few of which come directly from the Sri Lanka government. THF (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits is not how we decide encylopedic categories but if you go by google hits, Jewish terrorists gets 514 hits, White America terrorist gets 40 hits, Native American terrorist gets 26 hits. Scottish terrorists gets 118 hits. Corsican terrorist gets 105 hits. There are enough RS sources to create Categorizers, that’s why sensibly the terrorist by nationality definition was arrived in Wikipedia to avoid all this hoopla. Taprobanus (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taprobanus Your arguments go in circles, and you do not seem willing to except any facts or sources that differ from your own personal views.WackoJacko (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is we categorize basically by what their passport says. If it says Sri Lankan, they are Sri Lankan terrorists (Prabhakaran, et. al.). Perhaps if you "excepted" the Wikipedia category structure, you would see the obvious logic of Taprobanus' arguments instead of evoking worthless links to Wikipedia policy and terms that do not apply at all.Pectore^talk 22:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is wide agreement over the fact that the Québécois are not fighting for French nationalism. I have summarized the analogies between the FLQ and the LTTE below.

ethnicity	country where the ethnic terrorists reside	majority country of the ethnicity	term for the terrorist group	term not used for the terrorist group
French	Canada	France	Québécois/French Canadian	French
Tamil	Sri Lanka	India (Tamil Nadu)	Sri Lankan Tamil	Tamil

I think the analogy should be clear. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasy jatere, no it is not clear. Being French is not an ethnicity, it is a nationality. The average white Frenchman is a blend of Celtic, Latin, and Teutonic (Frankish). However, just saying someone is french is not an ethnicity. There are french of many ethnicities. .WackoJacko (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This notwithstanding, can you agree that the term not to be used for the FLQers is "French terrorists"? Jasy jatere (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling them Tamil terrorists is not at all analogous. According to the principles behind your proposal, we should call Palestinian Terrorists living within Israel (as all of them were, before the PLO declared independence in 1988 at least) "Israeli Palestinian terrorists." That's frankly absurd. How about this: let's follow reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 17:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about RS sources ad homonym. Show me a first grade Academic source that is published by a University press that call them Tamil terrorists or even a fact checking first grade mainstream source such as Boston Globe which by the way writes about this issue all the time. Quoting google hits when in Sri Lanka, Tamil terrorist is an epithet used to describe any Tamils by bigots[10],[11] who have access to the internet is totally misleading. Cite with fundamentally WP:RS first grade sources that call them as such. Taprobanus (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times reliable enough? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your favorite Snowd4 WP:REDFLAG :))Taprobanus (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thanks for lightening things up a bit. I'll try to find more sources. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay here we are. I did a Factiva search and these are some of the first few of hundreds of results that popped up,

The Scotsman, Hundreds die as Sri Lankan forces meet 'human wave' of Tamil Tigers, 1 October 1998.
Xinhua News Agency, Sri Lankan Air Force Tightens Air Defenses., 8 October 1998.
The Times of India, Power struggle surfaces in LTTE over successor , 20 September 2007.
Indian Express, Myths from Mumbai, 16 December 2008.
The Sunday Times (London), INDIA BOMB SUSPECT HELD - BOMBAY, 14 March 1993.
National Post, Tamil rally cancelled over threatening call: 'Interest of public safety', 10 June 2000.

Besides, per WP:REDFLAG, Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. I think the New York Times itself qualifies as a high quality source. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Nominator is right, even we don't have Hun Terrorists.Sudithar (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Sudithar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My argument is important, not the absense of my bulk of contribution. And, my account was created on 2 September 2007.Sudithar (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was funny but to the point, we need a break like this. Hunnish terrorists would be a great category to place Atilla, then we can create historic terrorists by ethnicity and sub divided the Germanic tribes into Vandal terrorists, Gothic terrorists, Lombard terrorists, Saxon terrorists....:))Taprobanus (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The same editors are making the same arguments over and over and over again. Drop the WP:STICK - you've all said your peace. Make room for new editors with new perspectives, and believe it or not, every keep/oppose does not need to be addressed by things you've said before. People are able to read. This is not directed at anyone in particular. --David Shankbone 21:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - This is ridiculous. Then we must create categories such as Sinhalese Terrorists (according to Sinhala Government at least few JVP members would fit this description.), Muslim Terrorists, White Terrorists (IRA, US terrorists), Black Terrorists etc etc. If this category is kept then the logical conclusion would be create the above mentioned categories. --Natkeeran (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Taprobanus' reasoning. For LTTE members one should use [[Category:LTTE members]] or some such suitable category. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 17:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I strongly agree with Taprabanus. Should not be categorised as an ethnic identity.--Kanags (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reason for deletion in my opinion is that it is racist and an attack towards a particular ethnic group whether it be Jewish, Tamil, Mayan, etc. It would be better to categorize according to nationality instead of ethnicity. Or better yet, Category:Tamil insurgent groups or Category:Tamil insurgents would be more appropriate with regards to neutrality. While I do not oppose Jasy jatere and others who want to delete this template, I do not oppose THF and others for wanting to keep it. One person’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist and vis a versa. Everybody’s entitled to their opinions, like I’m entitled to mine. Please do not respond to my post, as there will not be a response due to the length of this Category for deletion, turned soap opera drama page. Wiki Raja (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per nom. Also, This is a nationalist terrorist group, not an ethnic group.69.223.189.12 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the IP's second edit. Obvious SPA.Pectore^talk 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break 4[edit]

Closing comments: My objections to this category are three fold.

Notwithstanding how many ever intellectually lazy western and some Asian journalists would term Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as Tamil Tigers and Tamil terrorist. They are not fighting for a Tamil state or even for Tamil Nationalism. How ever hard it may be for some to understand they are not even ethnically Tamil. They are Sri Lankan Tamils, a culturally and genetically distinct group with a history over 1000 years in the island of Sri Lanka if not longer. To compare them just to Tamils is as absurd as calling French Canadians as French people, Belgian Walloons as French people and Swiss French as French. A convicted Swiss German terrorist is not a German terrorist even if 1000 reliable sources call him as such. I hope this analogy makes sense for euro-centric crowd here.
This category is about terrorist by nationality and although the case of Palestinians, Kurds and Basques were presented as non state nationalities. It is clear that it is misleading. Palestinians are special case. For us Asians, Africans and Latin Americans Palestinian have been a nationality for over 50 years. They’ve had embassies and have been invited for Asian games and Olympics long before the North Americans and their European allies decided that a two state solution is the best way out of the morass. The case of Basques has been resolved by the Basques centered editors by calling them Basque paramilitaries not terrorists. Kurds represent a special case. Their quest for Kurdistan transcends all nation states in the neighborhood. Except a fringe few, very few Indian Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamils if any on both sides of Palk Straight ever dreamt of a unified Tamil country and for sure non of the LTTE cadres caused terrorist activities for such a state. Sri Lankan Tamils have always remained an ethnic group albeit with a parity mentality.
In Sri Lanka, Tamil Terrorist is a racist epithet, spewed at political opponents who happen to be Sri Lankan Tamils. Creating a category called Tamil terrorist would surmount to creating a category for Category:Nigger, Category:Pariah just because some under educated Associated Press and Reuters writer decided to parrot what he heard in the Sri Lankan media.Taprobanus (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category:Tamil terrorists. To explain the situation from another angle, British would have considered George Washington a Category:American terrorists. . -Iross1000 (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Taprobanus and Jasy Jatere are quite right. Sri Lankan Tamils are a distinct, although related, ethnic group, much like Swiss Germans. Note also that the use of the term "Palestinian terrorist", rather than "Arab terrorist" in that category. Palestinians are Arabs, and we even call the Middle-East problem "the Arab-Israeli conflict", but we still recognise that calling Abu Nidal an Arab terrorist is misleading. Which is why he is in Category:Palestinian terrorists, and not Category:Arab terrorists. The situation with Sri Lankan Tamils is exactly the same. There are about 70 million or so Tamils, Sri Lankan Tamils account for only about 3 million of them, and the issue which the LTTE and other militant groups in the Sri Lankan conflict are fighting about is limited to this smaller group, much as with the Palestinian militant groups. And, just as Palestinian nationalism is not the same as Arab nationalism, Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism is not the same as Tamil nationalism. In the modern context, Tamil nationalism is principally cultural and social and not political, unlike Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism which is principally political - all this becomes very clear if you take a look at the academic literature, e.g. Hellmar-Rajanayagam, Tamil: Sprache als politisches Symbol. Once this category is deleted, WP:SLR should be able to find a the best way of categorising people from groups like the LTTE, who've committed terrorist acts as part of this dispute. -- Arvind (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 15:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete No pages in this category. Doubtful it will expand. Mojodaddy (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now pending a better reason to delete a category with a main article. If kept rename to Category:Mobile payments or a more suitable name. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2009 (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: Upmerge the only entry. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge to Category:Former Eastern Orthodox Christians and Category:Converts to Mormonism. Small category with only one article. Judging by the current contents in Converts to Mormonism, there is little chance of immediate expansion. If kept, needs to be renamed to Category:Converts from Eastern Orthodox Christianity to Mormonism to match the standard naming pattern for "converts–from–to" categories. The phrase used in WP is "Mormonism", not "Mormon Faith". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete religion is inherently mutable and switching from one to another is less surprising today than in 1250 AD, to the point of non-notability. If the convert moves on to Fooism do we now have Category:Orthodox converts to Mormonism who later converted to Fooism. Hardly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strange. Support Good Olfactory's substitution as well. Cool Hand Luke 19:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge any members that apply. --MPerel 18:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and upmerge any members that apply. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Converts to Mormonism only. I do not think former religion is likely to be worth categorising here. Category currently has a single member. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2009 (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 current name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mobile phones to Category:Mobile telecommunications user equipment

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not all user equipment in telecommunications are phones. The standardizing organizations consistently refer to mobile devices as "user equipment" or "UE". Furthermore, it seems people have been seeing this category as a "catch all" for anything related to mobile devices, when it is intended to be just a category for the different user equipment.Mojodaddy (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose since the proposed target only get 24 google hits. Clearly this is not a common term. A better justification for this change is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Vegas. It seems to me we ought to have a category called this; if necessary non-phone stuff should be moved elsewhere. If a category just for specific models is wanted (& I can see the case for that), maybe Category:Models of mobile phone or something could be set upo as a sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See UE_(wireless telephone) and Mobile_station. I'm not sure what search you did, but googling "telecommunications user equipment" gives tons of results. The problem with having the category "mobile phones" as a subcategory of "mobile telecommunications user equipment" is that you've now got to define what qualifies a device as being a "phone". Good luck with that. It's why 3GPP and all the other standardizing organizations don't define it or attempt to use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojodaddy (talk • contribs) 06:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sounds like governmentspeak - let's stay with phones. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I don't think it would be clear to the average person reading Wikipedia.WackoJacko (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Vegaswikian. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:58, 21 January 2009 (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 alternate proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Belgian Croix de Guerre to Category:Croix de guerre recipients (Belgium)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. to match parent category, and simplify. emerson7 19:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support consistency in the hierarchical structure. --MPerel 05:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is for Carlos' version below, which is less confusing. --MPerel 18:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Croix de guerre (Belgium) recipients shouldn't the parenthetical follow Guerre, as looking at these 3 one would likely come to the conclusion that these are all recipients of the same award but are from different countries. The way to disambiguate that is to modify the award by country and not the recipients by country. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Carlos THF (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support Carlos Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2009 (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 alternate proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the French Croix de Guerre to Category:Croix de guerre recipients (France)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. to match parent category, and simplify. emerson7 19:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support consistency in the hierarchical structure. --MPerel 05:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is for Carlos' version below, which is less confusing. --MPerel 18:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Croix de guerre (France) recipients shouldn't the parenthetical follow Guerre, as looking at these 3 one would likely come to the conclusion that these are all recipients of the same award but are from different countries. The way to disambiguate that is to modify the award by country and not the recipients by country. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Carlos THF (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support Carlos Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2009 (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 alternate proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Luxembourg Croix de Guerre to Category:Croix de guerre recipients (Luxembourg)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. to match parent category, and simplify. emerson7 19:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support consistency in the hierarchical structure. --MPerel 05:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is for Carlos' version below, which is less confusing. --MPerel 18:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Croix de guerre (Luxembourg) recipients shouldn't the parenthetical follow Guerre, as looking at these 3 one would likely come to the conclusion that these are all recipients of the same award but are from different countries. The way to disambiguate that is to modify the award by country and not the recipients by country. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Carlos THF (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support Carlos Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (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: Upmerge. If this grows to the point that a category is really needed, then it can be recreated. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete No pages within category, no room for expansion, as this category title is an article. Mojodaddy (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – it is empty because you have emptied it. Please replace the articles so that it can be properly considered. (Google gives 35 pages in wikipedia mentioning the exact phrase, which suggests the category has potential.) Occuli (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Edit: Recategorized it to HSPA. We can keep it. Mojodaddy (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no point in keeping an empty category, I have put back the 2 articles you removed from it. I would suggest an upmerge to Category:High-Speed Packet Access rather than a keep. Occuli (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2009 (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 all. the wub "?!" 01:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete These three categories are sub-cats of Category:LGBT politicians or Category:LGBT politicians from the United States.

First of all, they go against WP:OVERCAT by breaking the cat into a less-useful category. An LGBT politician who is a mayor may have different responsibilities than an LGBT politician who is a State Legislator, but the differences do not warrant a division of the categories. Simply being in the Category:LGBT politicians from the United States is enough for navigational purposes.

Secondly, per WP:CATGRS, "Categories should not be based on sexuality unless the sexuality has a specific relation to the topic." There is a definite distinction to being a gay politician, especially with issues like Same-sex marriage and such being discussed. But being gay and holding a particular *office* - sexuality doesn't have a specific relation to mayors or state legislators.

Upmerge the entries to their appropriate Category:LGBT politicians by country. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - I feel that these sub-categories make their parent cats much more useful to readers. Those who are state legislators are (with few exceptions) the highest-ranking LGBT public officials in their states -- a very significant distinction. And being elected to Congress is even more of a distinction -- which is why there are so few (even if we assume there are others who are closeted). LGBT mayors are noteworthy for a somewhat different set of reasons: unlike most local officials, they are elected through at-large elections, meaning that they have won the approval of their whole city, not just in a district. And they have been entrusted with the responsibilities of a chief executive -- so they're not just one voice among many on a city council or board of supervisors. And lastly, an example of how it helps to have a degree of specificity, as reflected in these sub-categories: it was much easier for me to spot the name of Stu Rasmussen (which I was trying to remember), the first openly transgender mayor in the US, because I knew that he was a mayor -- a much smaller cohort than the total population of LGBT politicians. Notified category creators with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I fail to see how lumping all LGBT elected officials into a single category helps navigation. The categories fit well into the Category:LGBT politicians as well as the parent categories for mayors, state legislators and congressional representatives. If the purpose of categories is to assist navigation, these categories fit that bill, as constructed. Alansohn (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - These are legitimate subcats, and they do not even violate triple intersection.Pectore^talk 03:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Per above. Plus, as SatyrTN suggested to me on my talk page concerning the LGBT mayors category, I posted to the LGBT WikiProject's Categories talk page to offer the category that I created (Category:LGBT mayors) for scrutiny from the WikiProject, but no one responded. --Toussaint (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all – As has been so eloquently expressed above, these categories are extremely useful for navigation, helping to make manageable what would otherwise be an unwieldy category. They should definitely be kept. — Lincolnite (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of the above !votes have addressed the issue that sexuality and a particular office have nothing to do with each other. WP:CATGRS specifically states that these categories should be avoided unless sexuality has something specific to do with the topic. One can argue that being a gay politician is indeed an important intersection, but not a particular office. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Noting that WP:CATGRS is a guideline rather than a policy, which we are free to disregard at will, these smaller subdivisions are a logical divisions of the politicians parents, and they are also logical children of the corresponding office parent. I would disagree that the relationship of one's sexuality to one's political office stops at the "politician" level. Encyclopedic research can certainly be done on various LGBT members of Congress and imagine if anyone ever finds the definitive proof about Abe Lincoln or James Buchanan. Otto4711 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your astute comment re WP:CATGRS, Otto. As I've pointed out from time to time, guidelines are supposed to reflect concensus -- not dictate results. Cgingold (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. With respect, LGBT politicians, generally, do bring legislative attention to LGBT communities which are historically marginalized and persecuted minorities. Each article may not presently demonstrate this but if properly expanded likely would show exactly this with a politician in this category who didn't as an odd exception. Further, it's quite helpful to be able to quickly tell which people are LGBT Mayors vs. Congress-people etc. If there is a better way to organize, what is it? But upmerging doesn't seem helpful here and it's pretty clear this organizing is helpful if if the association between their sexuality and career may not always be immediately apparent. -- Banjeboi 22:24, 21 January 2009 (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: result. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete There doesn't need to be a category about one album/film Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2009 (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. the wub "?!" 01:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Equids to Category:Equidae

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring the name of this category in line with the relevant Wikipedia article and Commons category. Una Smith (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nominator's rationale. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as above, really. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:52, 18 January 2009 (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. the wub "?!" 01:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Clearly fails WP:Neutral point of view, and hence WP:Categorization. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems a bit of an oxymoron. If it is scientifically proven, how can it be paranormal? It's no surprise that this is an empty category! :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is my fault that it is empty - I removed it from Telepathy and Premonition before deciding to take it here. I am not sure what is the protocol for these discussions, but if we need context, those two articles are the only ones on which I have seen this category used. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing those links. I've been puzzling over the fact that hardly a day goes by without an editor emptying a category just prior to bringing it here for a CFD, even though it plainly says right there on the CFD template/notice: "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Obviously, you just never noticed that -- but thankfully, you immediately volunteered the info. (Sometimes I almost have to beg... ) Anyway, it's a crucial part of the CFD process, and I sure would like to figure out how to get that point across more successfully beforehand -- i.e. before the category has been emptied. Any suggestions? PS - Good on you for notifying the creator about the CFD. Cgingold (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NPOV, assumes that are phenomena that fit the category. dougweller (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and oxymoronic. Abecedare (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see what qualifies for it. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom --Akhilleus (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not an oxymoron, but the category is empty and there is no prospect that anything will legitimately belong there in the foreseeable future. Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested that Eldereft re-add Telepathy and Premonition to this category and re-submit it for deletion, since most of this discussion has revolved around the incorrect belief that no such phenomena exist. Keithkml (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no likelihood that any consensus will be reached that any paranormal phenomena are scientifically proven to exist. Paul B (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- if Telepathy and Premonition are the best examples of "Scientifically proven paranormal phenomena", this category is completely unnecessary... — Scientizzle 06:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - proven is the wrong word, if anything 'verfied' or something. but still....if we get some good studies showing that some paranormal thing is measurable, we can then make a category for it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's proven it's probably not paranormal. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's an empty category and very likely to remain so until qualifying phenomena arise. --TS 01:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or - to make a point - add to a new Category:Oxymoronic categories. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2009 (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. the wub "?!" 01:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete We already have Category:Homeopathic remedies, the actual (highly debatable) status of particular preparations should be discussed in individual articles, not asserted without qualification by a category. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles were in this cat before you removed them? Cgingold (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last night, the category contained Oscillococcinum and Zinc gluconate. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator's rationale. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category assumes that there are proven homeopathic remedies, hence NPOV. dougweller (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ill-defined inclusion criterion and POV name. (1) If it is supposed to include substances used by both conventional and homeopathic medicine, then it is deceptively (mis)labeled intersection; (2) If it is supposed to contain substances that are proven to be medically effective in homeopathic dosages, then it is (destined to be ?) empty. Abecedare (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and because we really don't need one more poorly defined category/list to argue over, do we? "Clinically proven" is actually a fairly vague term, particularly in an area like homeopathy. MastCell ^Talk 09:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Empty category. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a category has been emptied is not in itself grounds for deletion. Cgingold (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a general proposition, the phrase "Clinically proven remedy" just isn't well-suited to serve in a category name, as it is a somewhat elusive concept in a number of respects -- and using in a category name would have the appearance of conferring the Wiki stamp of approval. It's no accident that we don't have any other categories for "Clinically proven remedies". Cgingold (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category should not be created until there is something that can legitimately be placed in it, which is not the case right now. Looie496 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that Eldereft re-add Oscillococcinum and Zinc gluconate to this category and re-submit it for deletion, since most of this discussion has revolved around the incorrect belief that no such remedies exist. Keithkml (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In reply to Keithkml, no it does not. The discussion disputes, quite rightly, the usefulness of the concept for reasons cogently explained by Abecedare. If a remedy is used in conventional medicine, the fact that it is also used by homeopaths is irrelevant. If it is used by homeopaths, we also have to take into account the nature of homeopathic practice itself. Paul B (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if Oscillococcinum and Zinc gluconate are the most "proven" remedies, this category is bunk. — Scientizzle 06:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per nom, but also agree with request not to empty the categories first. I guess, in general I'm not a fan of over categorization. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one clinic's proof of something is not the basis of categorization; didn't some clinic in the 1950s assure us that cigarette smoking was not only safe but beneficial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that the very basis of homeopathic compounds violate various accepted principles (like Avogadro's number regarding concentration) this claim by even basic logic is bunk.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or - to make a point - add to a new Category:Oxymoronic categories. This whole thing begs the question of why we don't have a Category:Disproven medical theories and remedies... ;-) -- Fyslee (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2009 (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 - per subsequent expansion/recategorisation. - jc37 07:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category with one member and little change of expansion. Upmerge to Category:Ascetics, its only parent category. Editor2020 (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:Now has 23 members. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and upmerge per nominator's rationale. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I hate to admit it, but I don't remember why I created it in the first place. I probably had some plans to expand the topic and fill up the category, but clearly that never came about. — The Man in Question (sprec) · (forðung) 13:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreation, given creator has no plans to populate. But I imagine this could be done from existing articles if anyone was ready to do the work. Now populated, with 23 articles, and additional better parents, so Keep. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*comment* FWIW, Category:Ascetics is all but an appropriate categorisation for Beguines an Beghards in general, e.g. Beguines did not usually take a vow of poverty, even when living in a béguinage, so I removed that categorisation from Category:Beguines and Beghards. The upmerge proposed by nom is completely inappropriate: it is rewriting history. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this will be useful, and will fill up eventually. Not well placed however as a sub-cat of Ascetics, as per above comments, and I agree with Francis Schoncken's action. . HeartofaDog (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Now the category has been populated, it is clearly worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2009 (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 per discussion and reparent sub categories. Someone should check the parents for Category:Dance artists by genre after I create it. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:List of dance artists by genre to Category:Discuss

Nominator's rationale: Direct category members are lists, but sub-categories are not lists. Editor2020 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure if this is a typo by the nominator's rationale. Category:Discuss? Please explain. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to convey that I recognized a problem and wanted to bring the category to this forum for discussion, without a specific recommendation.--Editor2020 (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Lists of dance artists and remove the subcats which should be under something like Category:Dance artists by genre (if appropriate). Occuli (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and remove subcats, per Occuli.--Editor2020 (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and remove subcats, per Occuli. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename using "dance musicians", or "dance music performers" perhaps, since all of these appear to be musicians. I thought they would be dancers and/or choreogrphers from the name. Also there is a long-standing convention to reserve "artist" in category names for visual arts artists, precisely to avoid this sort of confiusion. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2009 (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. This action does not prevent Hmains or anyone else from starting another discussion on the merits of the second proposed rename which was not really discussed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:List of British people by ethnic or national origin to Category:Lists of British people by origin

Nominator's rationale: Category contains lists. Editor2020 (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per the nominator's rationale. I suppose this is just a way to be more terse with our category name but essentially say the same thing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - the contents are indeed lists. Occuli (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Agathoclea (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename - per nom. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Lists of British people by ethnic or national origin as there are multiple lists. Do no change the 'ethnic or national origin' phrase, which is used in many categories to cover two different aspects of identity: ethnicity and nationality and which comprise the contents of such categories Hmains (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2009 (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 Reachout International Records recording artists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:List of artists that appear on ROIR to ~~Category:Artists who appear on ROIR~~ Reachout International Records recording artists, per Johnbod.

Nominator's rationale: A category, not a list. Editor2020 (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to ~~Reachout International Records artists~~ Reachout International Records recording artists to match the common form in Category:Artists by record label. Also expand the name to the actual name listed on the company page. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to ~~Reachout International Records artists~~ Reachout International Records recording artists as per Vegaswikian. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename to Category:ROIR artists, per title of main article. I had no idea what ROIR stood for TBH. Lugnuts (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Reachout International Records recording artists following Vegas et al. I must say I haven't come across these categories before. Normally there is a convention in WP categories to reserve "artist" for visual arts artists to avoid confusion. "Recording artists" is I suppose ok in this context, and I think whatever is done here should use that term. Really we should have a mass rename of these, as not all have "records" etc in the title. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is everyone saying it should be Reachout Int..., etc in the category name? I don't understand. Compare, say, Category:NASA with the main article. Lugnuts (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very few acronyms are traditionally allowed in category names; they have to be much better known than this. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Reachout International Records recording artists per johnbod, and agree that artists should ideally be changed to 'recording artists' throughout Category:Artists by record label. Occuli (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant - there's already a list List_of_Artists_that_appear_on_ROIR. What next? A List of lists about ROIR? -- Xinit (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not likely that you will get any traction on that idea by selecting a single category. If you want that, you would have to nominate all of the similar categories. However you need to keep in mind that lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2009 (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 for now. As noted, the only article in the category, Doris Saunders, makes no mention of her religion. Recreation permissible if other articles are found/written for this category, or if Doris's article is sourced. Kbdank71 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Narrow intersection. Non-notable intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Upmerge single article to Category:People of the Moravian Church if that is determined to be a non-trivial or defining characteristic. Editor2020 (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've mentioned this before, but let's spell it out. If you propose an upmerge, it has to be to all parent categories, unless there are reasons to exclude any, in which case they should be set out. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that "if that is determined to be a non-trivial or defining characteristic" would explain that. The other parent categories are trivial or non-defining for this article's subject, according to the current article.--Editor2020 (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would have thought wrong. What is wrong with Category:Canadian Protestants? Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the information in the single article (Doris Saunders) in this category, this is a trivial or non-defining characteristic, and thus this article should not be in Category:Canadian Protestants. At this point in time, neither "Moravian" or "Protestant" is mentioned in the article, in fact, no mention at all is made about her religious affiliation.--Editor2020 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree re Doris Saunders ... 'People of the Moravian Church' does need some qualification. Occuli (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Some months ago I did a fair bit of work to rationalise Category:Moravian Church. There are 10 <Nation> people of the Moravian Church sub-categories. These struck me at the time as badly named. A more useful and accurate but long-winded designation would be People who served the Moravian church in <Nation>. My preference would be to neither delete the sub-categories nor upmerge them but instead to rename them. -Arb. (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – part of Category:People of the Moravian Church by nationality - entirely standard and non-trivial intersection. Occuli (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a classic case of overcategorization. It violates three guidelines:

Trivial intersection
Intersection by location
Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference--Editor2020 (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OCAT by nationality and religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- since the category only has one article, it is difficult to judge whether being a Moravian is a notable characteristic or not. The question of wheter to keep or upmerge will depend on how many people there are for whom this intersection is notable. In UK the Moravians are now a very minor denomination, but I suspect that this is not the case in Canada. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Non-notable intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Editor2020 (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are about 15 writers-by-Christian-denomination categories, and no doubt ones for other religions. Why pick on these? In any case some merging would be required, not just a delete. Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a non-notable intersection. The only criteria are being a writer of any kind and a member of the Moravian Church. As far as the other categories go, you have to start somewhere. Why not here?--Editor2020 (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact all seem to have been religious writers of some kind, as the category name suggests. So the intersection is indeed defining. Did you look at the articles? Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the category description "Members, adherents or clergy of the Moravian Church who are/were known for their literary contributions, often of a religious nature.

The term "Writers" is here used in its broadest sense to include poets and hymn writers. These may eventually warrant their own categories if numbers become sufficient."

Keep: Some months ago I did a fair bit of work to rationalise Category:Moravian Church. This category is indeed intended to be for "religious writers of some kind" and follows a pattern set by other denominations. I'll add a note to this effect to the top of it. -Arb. (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Turns out there is already such a note. -Arb. (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – looks like a notable intersection to me. Occuli (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would query whether there is any objective and indisputable test for notability. What may seem non-notable to one editor may be notable to others. The Moravian Church as the world's oldest Protestant denomination has made a unique and distinctive contribution to theology and hymnography; and a category about its writers seems to me to provide a very powerful way of structuring and facilitating readers' access to material about that contribution. My only complaint is that the category needs more entries, especially about the pre-Zinzendorf phase, eg, there ought to be an entry on so distinguished a figure in cultural history as John Amos Comenius Westwood lad (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there already is a pretty decent article -- as well as a (recently-renamed) category for his books (Category:Books by John Amos Comenius). I added several new categories to his article just the other day, and I'll follow up on your suggestion and put him in some of the Moravian cats. Cgingold (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I assume that it will cover theologians and otehr religious writers of the denomination, not merely authors who happen to be Moravians. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary level of categorization. Upmerge subcategories to Category:Congregationalist clergy. Editor2020 (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - again, matches categories for other denominations. You should be nominating the sub-cats as well. The numbers could be considerably expanded by moves - most of Category:Welsh Congregationalists seem to have been ministers in fact. Johnbod (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subcats do not need to be deleted, they should be sub-categories of Category:Congregationalist clergy. The nominated category establishes an unnecessary additional level of categorization "by nationality". Instead of establishing an entirely new classification level, all of sub-categories should be direct members of Category:Congregationalist clergy.--Editor2020 (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mention that in your nom, so this would not be done & they would be left stranded. Keep anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, yes I did. Just look up there. See, where it says "Upmerge subcategories to Category:Congregationalist clergy."--Editor2020 (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "Upmerge subcategories to Category:Congregationalist clergy", that means adding all the articles to Category:Congregationalist clergy, and deleting the existing sub-cats. Also, you are not proposing to do any thing on the "by nationality" side, adding to the next level up the Welsh etc tree. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is the standard way of doing things. See almost any categorisation scheme. There might be other ways of sub-catting Category:Congregationalist clergy (eg by period, by century, by gender, by type). Occuli (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is also a violation of:

Trivial intersection
Intersection by location
Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference--Editor2020 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Category:People, Category:People by nationality, Category:People by occupation. Category:Welsh Congregationalist clergy (say) is a standard part of this scheme. (Or is the whole thing a 'stinking pile')? Occuli (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Carlaude ^(talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; an appropriate sub-category of Category:Christian clergy by nationality and Category:Congregationalists by nationality as well as Category:Congregationalist clergy. Triple upmerge (which is the only alternative - you can't just upmerge to one parent category here) would wreck the structure. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is part of a rational categorisation system for a major denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Narrow, non-notable intersection. Upmerge single article to Category:Congregationalists if that is considered to be a notable or identifying feature. Editor2020 (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – part of wider scheme Category:Congregationalists by nationality. Occuli (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Upmerge --Carlaude ^(talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OCAT by nationality and religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli; unclear why only some sub-categories of Category:Congregationalists are being nominated (e.g. not the Category:Welsh Congregationalists). This is part of a wider scheme of Category:Canadian Christians as well as Category:Congregationalists, which the nomination fails to recognise (e.g. through failing to suggest an upmerge to Category:Canadian Protestants, its other parent category). Whilst a small sub-category in itself, its position as part of a wider structure justifies its being kept per WP:OC#SMALL and the precedent upon which that guideline is built. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is part of a rational categorisation system for a major denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Narrow intersection. Upmerge single article to Category:Congregationalists. Editor2020 (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – part of wider scheme Category:Congregationalists by nationality. Occuli (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Upmerge --Carlaude ^(talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OCAT by nationality and religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasons above. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about keeping this one, as I doubt there is much room for expansion: Possibly Upmerge to Category:Congregationalists. Any other parents will probably be adequately covered. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Narrow intersection. Upmerge single article to Category:Congregationalists. Editor2020 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – part of wider scheme Category:Congregationalists by nationality. Occuli (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Upmerge --Carlaude ^(talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OCAT by nationality and religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasons above. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about keeping this one, as I doubt there is much room for expansion: Perhaps Upmerge to Category:Congregationalists. Any other parents will probably be adequately covered. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Narrow intersection. Upmerge single article to Category:Congregationalists. Editor2020 (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – part of wider scheme Category:Congregationalists by nationality. Occuli (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Upmerge --Carlaude ^(talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OCAT by nationality and religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasons above. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is part of a rational categorisation system for a major denomination. Due to the activities of London Missionary Society, the Congregational Church is the major denomination in many South Pacific former british colonies. It is thus likely that the category has significant room for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Narrow intersection. Upmerge single article to Category:Congregationalists. Editor2020 (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – part of wider scheme Category:Congregationalists by nationality. Occuli (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Upmerge --Carlaude ^(talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasons above. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is part of a rational categorisation system for a major denomination. Due to the activities of London Missionary Society, the Congregational Church is the major denomination in many South Pacific former british colonies. It is thus likely that the category has significant room for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Narrow intersection. Upmerge solitary article to Category:Congregationalists. Editor2020 (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but what about upmerging also to Category:Kiribati Protestants? The person is clearly notable as a Kiribati Protestant leader in a Congregationalist church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - that's the thing with upmerges, as I've tried to explain above. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – part of wider scheme Category:Congregationalists by nationality. Occuli (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Upmerge --Carlaude ^(talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OCAT by nationality and religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasons above. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is part of a rational categorisation system for a major denomination. Due to the activities of London Missionary Society, the Congregational Church is the major denomination in many South Pacific former British colonies. It is thus likely that the category has significant room for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 14:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete with all sub-categories, as Overcategorization. If any actual article content can be found, Upmerge to Category:Religious leaders. Editor2020 (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the nom does not seem to have grasped the theory behind this sort of subcat scheme. There is plenty of content further down the tree. Occuli (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nom is well aware of the subcat system. The nom has also read WP:Overcategorization.--Editor2020 (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So which bit of WP:OCAT applies here? And why does it not apply to Category:People by period? Occuli (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge only – Category:Christian religious leaders by period, Category:Imams by period, Category:Rabbis by period
Keep – All other subcats. Ample content. --Carlaude ^(talk) 21:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ample content. The only argument against this category that I can see is overlap with Religious leaders by century. However, categorization by period is useful, for example, when century can not be identified. History can be approached by topic, geography or time period. Hence each form of people in history category can have particular uses when approaching along a particular 'dimension'. Jaraalbe (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is an entirely appropriate way of organising sub-categories for navigational purposes, and does not have to have articles placed directly into it to justify its existence. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a parent in a rational categorisation system. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2009 (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, I personally think the whole "part of a scheme" is also part of the pile, but the masses have spoken, over and over, that one-article categories are ok. Kbdank71 14:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, along with all sub-cats, as overcategorization. If any actual article content can be found, Upmerge to Category:Congregationalist clergy.Editor2020 (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – given that there is Category:Clergy by period I don't see why congregationalists should be excluded. (The subcats need to be tagged.) Occuli (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. The current categorization system is a Big Stinking Pile. I am trying to reduce the size of that pile.--Editor2020 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have against Category:17th century Anglican archbishops say (part of a related pile)? Occuli (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is part of a rational categorisation system for a major denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all of the above reasons and more. EstherLois (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 15:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, along with all sub-cats, as overcategorization. If any actual article content can be found, Upmerge to appropriate sub-category of Category:Christians. Editor2020 (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nom is misguided: there is ample content. Occuli (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample content, and growing. --Carlaude ^(talk) 21:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so is someone going to add Category:20th century Christians and Category:21st century Christians to all BLP's that have some Christian category, more catclutter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is ample content. This is a very useful super-category for navigation purposes. It should contain only sub-categories. Only argument that I can see against this is that there are currently no similar categories for other major faiths. Jaraalbe (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the above reasons and more. EstherLois (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a parent in a rational categorisation system. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 15:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization. If any actual article content can be found, Upmerge to Category:Congregationalists. Editor2020 (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - part of various wider schemes. Occuli (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept to Category:18th-century Congregationalists. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by century is not the way to categorize these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep. Keep if there proves to be more content after a reasonable period. Jaraalbe (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is part of a rational categorisation system for a major denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the above reasons (or rename if that is consensus). EstherLois (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2009 (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. Kbdank71 15:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Delete, with all sub-categories, as overcategorization. If any actual article content can be found, Upmerge to Category:Religious leaders. Editor2020 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nom is misguided. Occuli (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by century is not the way to divide these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the way such matters are handled, as other similar categories prove. Most are organized by century. EstherLois (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a parent category in a rational categorisation system . Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and all sub-categories, for all of the above reasons and more. EstherLois (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2009 (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 (has remained empty). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category members have been placed in either Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by college , Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society or Category:Lists of members of United States student societies based on their characteristics. Naraht (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, also category is empty.WackoJacko (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2009 (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.

January 18

Category:Go Phones

Category:Fictional time travelers

Category:Tamil terrorists

convenience break[edit]

convenience break 2[edit]

convenience break 3[edit]

convenience break 4[edit]

Category:Mobile Payment

Category:Orthodox converts to Mormon Faith

Category:Mobile phones

Category:Recipients of the Belgian Croix de Guerre

Category:Recipients of the French Croix de Guerre

Category:Recipients of the Luxembourg Croix de Guerre

Category:High-Speed Downlink Packet Access

LGBT Politicians by Office

Category:Comeback project

Category:Equids

Category:Scientifically proven paranormal phenomena

Category:Clinically proven homeopathic remedies

Category:Beguines and Beghards

Category:List of dance artists by genre

Category:List of British people by ethnic or national origin

Category:List of artists that appear on ROIR

Category:Canadian people of the Moravian Church

Category:Writers of the Moravian Church

Category:Congregationalist clergy by nationality

Category:Canadian Congregationalists

Category:Chinese Congregationalists

Category:Rhodesian Congregationalists

Category:Samoan Congregationalists

Category:Tuvaluan Congregationalists

Category:Kiribati Congregationalists

Category:Religious leaders by period

Category:Congregationalist clergy by period

Category:Christians by century

Category:18th century Congregationalists

Category:Religious leaders by century

Category:Lists of chapters or members of United States student societies