The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(Includes Category:1986 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1988 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1989 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1992 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1993 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1994 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1995 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1996 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1997 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1998 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1999 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2000 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2001 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2002 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2003 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2004 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2005 NFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1986 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1988 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1989 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1992 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1993 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1994 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1995 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1996 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1997 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1998 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:1999 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2000 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2001 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2002 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2003 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2004 AFC Pro Bowl players, Category:2005 AFC Pro Bowl players)
I can understand having a category for every team and even a category for Category:NFC Pro Bowl players and Category:AFC Pro Bowl players but a category for every year is better served by a list for each year. Brett Favre, for instance, now has 15 categories. Overloads servers, slows down Wikipedia, etc.-- BaronLarf 18:15, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Although I disagree with it, I am not seeking to reverse the decision recorded in the CfD debate. But we do need clarification - see Category talk:English coast and countryside by county#Confusion. If the decision was to merge into one "coast and countryside" category for England, then the category title is unsatisfactory. -- RHaworth 16:51, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am the author of this category. I am writing this entry here because it was listed as CfD by someone else, but they forgot to write the entry here. I vote keep, because it doesn't do any harm. — JIP | Talk 15:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This was recreated (probably by mistake)- consensus has already been reached that it should be deleted. -- G Rutter 13:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Archive of the first discussion Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Bible stories) -- G Rutter 14:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is an attempt to create a guideline for categories of people by first or last name. Please contribute there for a centralized discussion. R adiant _* 12:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is based on the fallacy that, in WikiPedia, you need to discuss the appropriateness of templates before using them. Instruction creep. R adiant _* 11:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not a good idea. A category that can be added to practically every film article isn't useful. — Xezbeth 06:50, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Agree Delete Hiding 10:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Empty category, no longer needed. →Iñgōlemo← talk 02:08, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Empty category no longer needed. →Iñgōlemo← talk 02:10, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another empty category. →Iñgōlemo← talk 02:12, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another unneeded empty category. →Iñgōlemo← talk 02:14, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)