From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 27 January 29 >

January 28

Category:Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, or Keep. Not sure about this one, leaning towards delete. What say you all? -- Prove It (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Greetings, there is an ongoing discussion about the articles in this category, here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meditation_for_Spiritual_Unfoldment. Also see here: Meditation_for_Spiritual_Unfoldment; "Spiritual Unfoldment" and "Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment" are not at all new terms, they are being used in various contexts and have been pre-existing in other wikipedia articles, so this distinct category was proposed. Please check Meditation_for_Spiritual_Unfoldment; as it is observed, the other mentioned wikipedia articles that have a connection of a variable degree with Spiritual Unfoldment and Meditation for Spiritual unfoldment will be summed up to form this category. So keep; it is advisable to observe the discussions and the results in the discussion page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meditation_for_Spiritual_Unfoldment. Thanks. MarekTT 00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • postpone decision If the page is kept, the use of this category will be for the articles about groups in various countries. they well might not be kept. I suggest re-listing in two weeks, though I do not know if this is a standard sort of action,so the alternative would be keep and nominate for CfD again if appropriate DGG 02:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Even if (and it's a big if) the main article Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment is kept, this category should still be deleted. There's no reason this particular type of mediation needs its own category; the articles included here can already appear in a "See also" list in the main article. So regardless of whether or not the main article is kept, the category should be deleted as an unnecessary overcategorization. Dugwiki 19:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. "Spiritual Unfoldment" as a term is diversely used. Please carefully review the articles under the category and the main article, referring specifically to Spiritual Unfoldment and meditating towards achieving it, from different backgrounds and point of views. Because of this diversity of opinions (some conflicting) regarding this topic, I therefore believe that the existence of this category will assist to defuse this. Again, please do your research on "Spiritual Unfoldment" (on wikipedia and internet... -note: even the World Bank has a "Spiritual Unfoldment Society" [1]... creepy-) , review the other articles and books carefully, before making your decision. Thank you. MarekTT 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Meditation category. Statements in favor of keeping this category apply to meditation as a whole. --- Safemariner 03:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meditation is the way to sit and just meditate. Spiritual Unfoldment is meditation AND putting conscious effort in daily living to overcome the individual's weaknesses. Meditation lasts 20-30 minutes and maybe (for some kinds)twice a day. Spiritual Unfoldment is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So it is very challenging. So you see you can't meditate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's why it is different from Meditation. People's approach on those who just meditate and don't put consious effort in daily living is very different from those who does. The spirituality gained and the results and benefits of the Spiritual Unfoldment method are extremely faster and stronger than just meditating. Don't get confused by just seeing the word 'meditation' in Spiritual Unfoldment that they belong in the same category. I agree with MarekTT. Doing a small research online you can notice that Spiritual Unfoldment is different from Meditation. You can even see this from the references used in this article. So having this in mind i think that it should stay in a different category. Damianosk 11:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP There are many Meditation techniques going on in the world. Some are only to relax the mind and do nothing more. Meditation For Spiritual Unfoldment goes beyond. The technique of meditation is used as a tool for the spiritual unfoldment. It is a Unique form of meditation, as Damianosk mentioned above, it helps you to live spirituality 24/7. I strongly reconment it should be in a category of its own because it is unique. Adimi 17:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • All forms of meditation are Unique in their own way --- Safemariner 04:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Dugwiki, I too can see no reason that this needs its own category. -- Xdamr talk 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • You are right Safemariner but we are talking about Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment not for any other kind of maditation Adimi 15:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep . Yeap... and anyway, as it is visible, the category has now more related articles that specifically mention spiritual unfoldment and meditation towards achieving it. I think it's worth it; why not?- Cheers MarekTT 11:40, 3 February 2007 (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 section.

Category:Metro Manila Newspapers and Magazines

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. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Metro Manila newspapers and magazines, or Delete. -- Prove It (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2007 (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.

Category:Fictional characters who have had abortions

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: listify, per creator's comments at the bottom, because the context is needed for this to be meaningful. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional characters who have had abortions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kinda silly category. What's next? Category:Fictional mothers? Category:Fictional characters who got shot? Category:Fictional characters who love pizza? Actually, Category:Fictional mothers got deleted recently, twice. [2] The whole Category:Fictional characters by situation needs watching for similar entries, IMHO. -- Conti| ✉ 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - still a very unusual and often controversial action for a show to take, definitely something that would benefit someone researching abortion in popular culture. Otto4711 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Hmm, wouldn't an article like Abortions in fiction be a much better place for that? A list of names doesn't sound very useful to me when I want to do some research on that topic. -- Conti| ✉ 23:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • An article wouldn't be terrible in addition to the category. Otto4711 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Otto4711 Johnbod 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Otto4711 — AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 00:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If we can't have fictional mothers or fictional characters who get shot, why should we have this category? Is an abortion a character's defining quality? Obviously there are useful purposes for a list of such characters. Doczilla 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The sheer number of fictional mothers or fictional characters who have been shot was as I understood it a large part of the reason that those catgeories were deleted. Despite what Radiant says below, character having abortions is not a particularly common plot point on soap opeas or in any other mode of fiction with which I'm particularly familiar and the number of notable characters who have had abortions is and for the foreseeable future remain small enough that a category isn't going to have the same sort of size-related problems that a mothers or got shot category would have. As for its being a defining characteristic, while I haven't researched it in any great depth I would argue that to at least some extent and for some characters it did become such a characteristic. Google "Maude abortion" and her having an abortion pops up in everything from a CNN retrospective on the abortion debate to a discussion on whether it was the abortion episodes that led to the show's jumping the shark. Otto4711 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and listify. It's fine to know what books/TV shows have mentioned abortions, but categories about media/people which have featured/experienced events at one point or another should typically be avoided. -- Vossanova o< 15:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. List would be better, and this phenomenon happens reasonably often in soap-like series. >Radiant< 15:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • In my viewing experience, what generally happens (at least on American TV) is that the character talks about having an abortion and then either miscarries or decides to have the baby. Otto4711 17:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
there are always books, you know! Johnbod 17:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Vossanova Pinoakcourt 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think the problem here is going to be the parent category Category:Fictional characters by situation. Personally I think this might be an unwieldy idea for a categorization scheme. But pending deleting this parent, I'd want to look at potential subcategories in an objective manner. I think you could reasonably argue that having an abortion is of similar level of importance to its sibling subcategories like Category:Fictional child abuse victims or Category:Fictional refugees. So assuming the other subcategories of Category:Fictional characters by situation are considered legitimate, then the abortion situation category seems to be of equal caliber. But it might very well be a good idea to look at Category:Fictional characters by situation in cfd as well to either clarify its restrictions or to delete it altogether. Depending on how editors feel, it might even be a good idea to simply turn this into an umbrella nomination covering Category:Fictional characters by situation and all its subcategories. Dugwiki 20:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Why does it matter if a fictional character has had an abortion? — mikedk9109 SIGN 21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A magnet for Anti-abortionists --- Safemariner 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand what this has to do with anything. Are anti-abortionists really going to flock to the category? To what end? Confusing comment. Otto4711 17:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As a member of WikiProject Abortion, I created Category:Abortion in media and its subcategories to accommodate abortion-related articles that didn't fit elsewhere, and I'm all for creating new categories to help increase navigation even more. But I don't think this category is helpful to that goal. Yes, an argument could be made that it is uncommon for fictional media to touch upon abortion, and, thus, having had one is a notable aspect of a character. But categories don't allow for context, or sources, so I think this would be much more appropriately handled as a list. - Severa ( !!!) 11:50, 8 February 2007 (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.

Category:Fenerbahçe sporters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fenerbahçe sporters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate of already deleted cat: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_17#Category:Famous_Fenerbah.C3.A7e_S.K._fans. Mais oui! 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. This category has already been deleted, plus it contains only a couple links. └ Jared┘┌ talk┐  22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fenerbahce is a Turkish athletic club, it might be useful to explain Johnbod 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (and what is a "sporter"? a typo for "supporter"?) Semperf 18:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete What the.... — mikedk9109 SIGN 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Spiritual recreation of previously deleted category—and 'sporters'!? -- Xdamr talk 21:05, 30 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Fenerbahce sporters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fenerbahce sporters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate of already deleted cat: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_17#Category:Famous_Fenerbah.C3.A7e_S.K._fans. Mais oui! 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. This category has already been deleted, plus it contains only a couple links. └ Jared┘┌ talk┐  22:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fenerbahce is a Turkish athletic club, it might be useful to explain Johnbod 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Semperf 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete duplicate. — mikedk9109 SIGN 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Duplicate of above category. -- Xdamr talk 21:06, 30 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:TV shows that use Descriptive Video Service

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: listify. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:TV shows that use Descriptive Video Service to Category:Television shows that provide Descriptive Video Service
  • Relisting. Apparent incomplete nomination from December 17. Vegaswikian 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. TV should be spelled out and use replaced by provide. └ Jared┘┌ talk┐  23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic, trivia. >Radiant< 15:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Who cares what Video Servies a tv show uses? — mikedk9109 SIGN 21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and Keep. This would be very useful category for visually impaired people looking for programs that have an audio track that describes the action on the screen. Like a radio commentry for a sports game. Please read Descriptive Video Service before voting to delete this category --- Safemariner 03:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Listify and Delete, a list would be just as helpful for visually impaired people and could be cited, provide additional annotation, etc. Not a defining characteristic, so not the best idea for a category. cab 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Technical trivia. Cloachland 00:37, 3 February 2007 (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.

Category:Guests on Koffee with Anu

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. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete, we've decided many times that Guest star categories are not a good idea. -- Prove It (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No notability. Has little encyclopedia value. └ Jared┘┌ talk┐  23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Sumahoy 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom Johnbod 00:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom Semperf 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per nom, there is pretty good consensus that "guest stars" should not be categorized. Listify instead if desired. Dugwiki 20:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. — mikedk9109 SIGN 21:32, 29 January 2007 (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.

Category:UTC+3

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, better served by a list, and already covered by lists in UTC+3 and Moscow Time. -- Prove It (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, and theres nothing in this category. — mikedk9109 SIGN 21:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The category is empty, so regardless, it should be deleted. └ Jared┘┌ talk┐  23:04, 28 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Silver Buffalo awardees

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. Most keep-comments are procedural or based on personal preference, rather than guidelines, or on the assumption that a list of awardees would be 'cruft'. It's not a problem if something was also discussed here three months ago. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Silver Buffalo awardees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Perhaps an important award within Scouting but a rather trivial thing to hang a category on. Otto4711 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep. Why are we reinventing the wheel. We've already done this once, and the result was a solid keep. See [3]. This is hardly a routine or insignificant award. Rlevse 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This user describes himself thus; "This user is the Lead Coordinator of the Scouting WikiProject." When exactly did they community consent to the creation of the office of "lead coordinator" of anything? The assumption of such positions of spurious authority seems to be to be a totally inappropriate interference with the open nature of Wikipedia. As for his question, the answer is clearly that the last vote was invalid because he fixed the outcome. ReeseM 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Object - this discussion is not about Rlevse and his description of himself. That is completely off-topic. Furthermore, ReeseM is making a serious allegation of improper behavior. ReeseM should strike this unsubstantiated accusation immediately. Johntex\ talk 17:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This has already had an extensive discusssion in an earlier CFD - October 2006. — ERcheck, 20:54, 28 January 2007
  • Delete - Like many other minor award categories, the people in this category (e.g. George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Hank Aaron) are known for accomplishments other than winning this award. The award probably represents one of many such awards that these people have won during their lifetimes. Such a system of categorizing people by the awards that they have won is not feasable, as the categories quickly flood individual article pages, contributing to category clutter (as seen in the articles on George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Hank Aaron). Although this category was discussed on WP:CFD in a 2006 October 20 discussion with consensus to keep, the current status of other category deletion nominations (such as for Category:Theodore Roosevelt Award recipients and Category:Alpha Phi Omega honorary brothers) shows that consensus can change. Given the impracticalities of categorizing people by every award that they have won, this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - important award given to a selective group of people. People interested in this topic would certainly like to navigate among the people who have won this award. I also think that a minimum of one year should go by before consensus is retested. Johntex\ talk 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I am not speaking to those awards. You can go and do your own research about whether those awards are important or not. Johntex\ talk 23:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This user is a member of the scouting wikiproject and has a scouting barnstar. ReeseM 11:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This user is not a member of the Scouting WikiProject and has not received a Scouting barnstar. Johntex\ talk 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Observation Dr. Submillimeter has established an impossible criteria to use. How does one measure "importance" or "selective"? Until this can be resolved, all you will ever get is an opinion battle. For me, this award is in fact more important than the Spingarn Medal (which I have never heard of) and arguably more selective that the Golden Glove Award (what percent of potential candidates received the award?). Of course, it would be silly to use such a criteria, so until there is a more concrete, objective measure, we have to rely on the "Wiki-way." Does this category make sense? Most of the arguments for keep are convincing to me, specifically: 1) high level - within its sphere, it is extremely high-level, 2) More useful as a category than as a list, 3) already decided recently (the appropriate response to something you don't agree with should *not* be to re-nominate. -- NThurston 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The overcategorization guideline I quoted below is a good guideline for determining "importance" for an award. As for the keep arguments you cite, 1) "Employee of the Year" for the company where I work is extremely high-level in its sphere but there's no way in hell it should be noted anywhere on Wikipedia. 2) For navigation purposes, it's doubtful that the category would be the first route of navigation accessed instead of the article on the award where a list would reside. 3) Consensus can change. Otto4711 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This category is more useful for navigation than Category:1924 births, which sits happily uncontested on the same George H. W. Bush article. The fact that these people received the Silver Buffalo award is a much more interesting thread for navigation than them being born in the same year. The 1924 births category contains far too many entries to expect any reader to navigate them. Johntex\ talk 17:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I believe that the birth year categories are maintained in part for legal reasons, much like the category for living persons. Regardless, the "worthiness" of one category is irrelevant to the "worthiness of another. Otto4711 18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Hmmmm... You may be right about the first part. I don't know, it is not obvious to me why there would be a reason to keep birth years. To your second point, others here have made comparison to other awards, notably Dr. Submillimeter above. Johntex\ talk 05:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per previous CfD. — mikedk9109 SIGN 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Dr. Submillimeter said it as well or better than I could have, no I'll add a few points. 1) "In general, the winners of all but the most internationally well-known awards should be put in a list rather than a category. It may nevertheless be useful to note the awards in the article." From the guideline on overcategorization. Yes, it's a guideline and not a policy, but it's a guideline that makes sense for application here. 2) A list either in the article or as a separate linked article makes much better sense for purposes of navigation. Anyone interested in researching the award is not going to go to the article for a recipient and then navigate to the category. They're going to go to the award article, so there should be a list there or a linked list article. 3) Quite frankly, I question that the article on the award is itself notable under Wikipedia guidelines. I find no independent third-party coverage of the award itself on google; what's there is either material generated by one unit or another of the BSA or it's trivial mentions of someone receiving the award. Otto4711 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As the award isn't directly connected to the BSA, it could be seen as being an even bigger honor than the Eagle Scout, and I don't think anyone would suggest deleting all Eagle Scout/Gold Award winners or cats? -- JohnDBuell 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • How is an award bestowed by the BSA not directly connected with the BSA? Otto4711 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It is given by the BSA but recipients do not have to be closely associated with the BSA. They have to epitomize the ideals of Scouting, whether or not they are a member of a Scouting organization. Johntex\ talk 23:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • An award bestowed by an organization is by definition associated with the organization that bestows it. Otto4711 23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, the award is associated with Scouting. My point is that the BSA selection criteria does not include a need for the recipient to be directly tied to Scouting. Rather, they must expemplify the ideals of Scouting. Johntex\ talk 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • You may feel it is a bigger honor than the Eagle Scout, but I feel it is a less defining characteristic. Eagle Scouts have made a decision to work towards a goal and spent years of their life achieving that goal. I don't think that Hank Aaron, Bill Clinton, or George Bush ever set out to be awarded the Silver Beaver. ~ Bigr Tex 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Well, Clinton maybe... Otto4711 18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This user has a scouting barnstar awarded by Rlevse. ReeseM 11:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-defining. Xiner ( talk, email) 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As an important award and the list of awardees is too large and full of important people to keep as a list without being full of cruft. Also, the last consensus was to keep the category, and this is awful speedy to be nominating it again. Darth griz 98 23:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This user is a member of the scouting Wikiproject. ReeseM 11:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I am appauled that you would consider my vote biased for this vote solely on the fact that I am a member of Wikiproject Scouting. Expecially when I stated a reason for why, IMHO, this category should be kept. Please do not be so hasty and jump to conclusions. We are allowed to state our oppions. Darth griz 98 04:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete This is not a defining characteristic for most recipients - the fact that the category is full of "important people" is actually the key reason why it is cruft. It should also be noted that there was no "consensus" last time in any meaningful sense. A lot of self-declared scouting enthusiasts skewed the vote, that is all. I have little doubt that the consensus of the community as a whole would be for delete. We need a radical overhaul of this process to prevent manipulation by minority interest groups. Sumahoy 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per other keeps above. Plus this cfd should be dropped immediately since the last one was a mere 3 months ago. There should be a 6-12 month minimum between cfd/afd's based on the same reasoning as this one is. Editors on both sides have better things to do than fight the same battle over and over. Sumoeagle179 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This user is a member of the scouting wikiproject. ReeseM 11:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • keep even if there were consensus to change the policy, and it seems clear that there is no such consensus, it would be best to start with a much smaller category to gauge reaction. DGG 02:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per previous CfD. — evrik ( talk) 03:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This user is a member of the scouting wikiproject. ReeseM 11:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Suggestion for those whose "keep" !vote is based solely on the existence of the previous CfD: try engaging in critical thinking on your own instead of just parroting what someone else said three months ago. Otto4711 04:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I find that last comment insulting. -- evrik ( talk) 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Suggestion for Otto - Pointing out that the category was recently Kept through a valid CfD is a perfectly valid argument for why we should not be revisiting this discussion at this time. Johntex\ talk 17:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That's more of a statement than a suggestion, but regardless I would respond that consensus can change and just because a previous CfD had a different result that is no reason not to put critical consideration into the new CfD process. If the previous CfD reached a wrong result for a poor reason (speking generally here, not specifically about the last CfD of this cat) then simply repeating "keep" because of the mere existence of the previous CfD is rather uncompelling reasoning. Otto4711 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Sure, consensus can change, but there is a limit to how frequently it should be tested. Johntex\ talk 15:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 1) Please define trivial in a non-objective manner. What is trivial about this award? 2) A recent CfD resulted in a keep- this sets a precedent (something most legal systems are based on). I am reluctant to against that precedent without some overwhelming factors that have not yet been presented. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: This seems to really be about the number of awards that appear to clutter the category section on articles. Perhaps a better solution would be to devise an awards infobox or a template that would put these in categories without appearing in the category section. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This user has three scouting barnstars, all awarded by Rlevse. These scouting enthusiasts do not represent a cross-section of the community. ReeseM 11:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Excuse me I'm wrong here, but you seem to be implying that editors with a demonstrated interest in a subject are biased in these discussions. This is an obviously tautological statement.
Most of the arguments presented here to delete this category deal with it's "triviality" as compared to other awards. Thus, I do not see this CfD as regarding this category per se, but as a sweeping argument that could result in the deletion of series of categories. If so, then this should be dealt with at a different level. Simply stating that the Silver Buffalo is trivial is really not definitive reasoning.
If the real desire is to clear up category clutter, then perhaps there needs to be a better way to do this. I'm not an expert in WikiMedia, but I can only think that there should be a way to list and categorize this type of information without "cluttering".
  • Delete Non-defining scouting-centric trivia. ReeseM 11:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment regarding the definition of "trivia." I would say that an award that has been the subject of no independent third-party coverage would qualify as trivial. If you don't like the word "trivial" than substitute "non-notable." I searched for information on the award on google (which I recognize is not the end-all be-all of sourcing, but still) and checked several dozen of the results. I could find none that discussed the award in any depth that were not from a Scouting website, either the official site of the BSA or the site of a local troop or council. Non-Scouting sites that mention the award do so in passing, mostly along the lines of press releases announcing a recipient or a half-sentence mention of the award in a much larger article on the recipient. I'm not saying that the award isn't important to those who receive it. My dad was a Scouting executive for 20+ years and I know how much people value their Scouting awards. What I am saying is that a person's status as a Silver Buffalo Award recipient is not a particularly important fact in the lives of most of them and that a category devoted to its recipients is not encyclopedic enough for inclusion here. Otto4711 14:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for the clarification. FWIW, a quick search reveals the Time article when the award was created. [4] (I'll add that to the article later).
I see that Theodore Roosevelt Award recipients is currently up for deletion. Presidential Medal of Freedom_recipients was up for deletion some months ago. I have not looked for other samples.
Since there does seem to be some consensus for deleting these types of categories, perhaps it would be better to refer the entire issue to some group to come up with a working plan. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals would be interested in this?
-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know anything about any other similar categories being up for deleteion nor did I notice that this one had been up for deletion back several months ago. I can assure you that as far as I know there is no organized movement afoot to strip Wikipedia of its awards categroies, and if there is such a movement I am not a part of it. I ran across this category while looking at Bill Clinton's article. Looking at the cat and then the award article I formed the opinion that the category was not one that was appropriate for Wikipedia for the reasons I stated in my nomination. No conspiracy, just a random category spot and nom. Otto4711 16:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Don't go X-Files on me :-) No, I'm not claiming a conspiracy. It does seem that this has come up before, and if this category is retained, then it will probably come up again. I am more inclined to have the whole awards issue worked by an informed group rather than piecemeal additions and deletions.
Not to dilute this discussion, but I think you might simply be chipping away at one ice cube in the berg. The whole category system for medals and awards is... interesting. Just a quick look at categories, we have Category:Medalists with a whole bunch of stuff I never heard of (which does make it interesting). This in turn is a subcat of Category:Award winners. And it just keeps going. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per previous CfD, and recommend block of re-nomination. -- NThurston 15:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Listify - If receipt of this award by a person is a defining moment in their life, then it should be included in their article with a link to the award article, which should contain or link to a list of recipients. ~ Bigr Tex 17:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Scout-cruft. Nothing wrong with just listing the winners in the award's article. Recury 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a minor award of no general interest. Pinoakcourt 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Normally I don't like renominating previously debated categories, but the exception is when either the category or a relevant guideline or policy has significantly changed. In this case, the guideline Wikipedia:Overcategorization was discussed and drew pretty strong consensus starting in late November 2006, after the previous cfd for this category. In the section Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners it recommends that "in general, the winners of all but the most internationally well-known awards should be put in a list rather than a category." That is slightly stronger language than I personally applied when I suggested a "weak keep" on the last discussion for this category. Since I'm not convinced that this award is one of the "most internationally well-known awards", I'm changing my recommendation to a Weak Delete from my stance a few months ago to try an be consistent with that guideline. Dugwiki 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Listify and Delete per Dugwiki. It is not even clear that you need to do anything notable to get the award. Vegaswikian
  • Delete This is a pretty random way to connect people. It's much the same as having a category for people with an honorary degree from a particular university. Potentially there could be thousands of such categories, but Wikipedia is better off without them. Craig.Scott 01:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are three similar categories nominated elsewhere that are all heading for deletion, and this one should be no different. It simply doesn't meet the guidelines mentioned above. Wimstead 12:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and listify per Dugwiki. Good info to keep around, but OC. Lesnail 15:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This seems to be pretty much an automatic perk for recent American Presidents. It is one of the categories on Bill Clinton for example, but he is hardly well known for his services to youth. Abberley2 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners. Doczilla 05:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Proposal Based on several comments, it appears that current methods of using the category system to link persons with awards is going to go away. The thinking seems to be that the categories at the bottom of the page are cluttered and distracting, that awards should be presented within the article, there should be a linked article for the award and there should be a list of people who have received the award. Some of the comments indicate that awards might be presented as a list within the article, but my experience shows that lists within articles are deprecated and rarely survive FAC, and are usually changed to a template. Thus, it appears that the consensus is to replace the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of award categories with an awards infobox template within the article and potentially an article on the award and a list of recipients. To demonstrate, I have added an awards and honors infobox to Arthur Rudolph. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - This is much better than the category system and more useful. I suggest adding inline citations for each entry within the infobox. We also have to consider what happens wehn someone very famous (e.g. George H. W. Bush or Bill Clinton) has won so many awards that an awards infobox is infeasible. In this situation, listing the awards on a separate page may be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 15:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, citations should be included. That is a good idea for handling long lists. If this is going to become a guideline or policy, it needs to be presented or codified in some manner. btw, The infobox I made for Arthur Rudolph is not a template yet.-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Agree with proposal - Seems like there is support for each award or honor having a list, so this type of template (perhaps fancied up a bit) would be a reasonable way of presenting the same information in a less cluttered fashion. Simple is good. The process for implementation would be: 1) Place the honors/awards template on every page in the category, including all current award categories in the box, 2) remove the category once the award is in the box, 3) ensure that the award page contains a complete list ("what links here" would be handy), 4) delete the category when it is empty. -- NThurston 17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
agree with proposal, it's clean looking and a really dignified way not to lose the work put in at this category. Thanks Ed! Chris 03:30, 2 February 2007 (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.

Category:British Convert Muslim Terrorists

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. Loaded phrasing is not good for categories, and it's near-empty anyway. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:British Convert Muslim Terrorists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Biased title, in violation of the NPOV policy. Picaroon 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Non-defining. Xiner ( talk, email) 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Category is empty. └ Jared┘┌ talk┐  23:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above Semperf 18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Can someone please quote the section of the NPOV policy that this title violates? --- Safemariner 03:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Safemariner, please see WP:WTA#Terrorist.2C_terrorism -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 07:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • As as I said, it is a Manual of Style guideline and NOT part of the NPOV policy. In any case the section that you cite begins with the sentence: "There is significant debate whether the term "terrorist" is a neutral description, or an opinion." so it is not settled policy by any means --- Safemariner
  • Keep The section quoted by Ķĩřβȳ does not seem to cover this, in particular these people cannot be categorised by membership of a certain group. Wimstead 12:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I see no violation of NPOV. Johntex\ talk 06:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - at its best its provable, but also fails POV. Even with references if it could be proven (would have to be on conviction of undertaking terrorist activity), the category would not be very full. Better as a list where the criteria could be opened up to include those not convited but suspected of. Rgds, - Trident13 22:35, 31 January 2007 (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.

Category:Jinnah

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, without prejudice towards a renomination for deletion; it is unclear how many of the rename-commenters object to deletion. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Jinnah ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Muhammad Ali Jinnah
  • Rename to the gentleman's full name or, if he does not have sufficient notability to sustain an eponymous category, Delete. Otto4711 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Muhammad Ali Jinnah; eponymous name categories should have the same title as the subject's article. And yes, he is notable enough for such a category. Picaroon 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't think he is notable enough for his own category. — mikedk9109 SIGN 21:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Mikedk9109. Xiner ( talk, email) 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Jinnah is the most important person in the history of the sixth most populous country in the world (and a major figure in the history of the second most populous). Sumahoy 23:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename as all above. notability is not a problem here! Johnbod 00:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, forget about that "delete" business. Obviously extremely notable. Otto4711 04:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per Sumahoy. Eluchil404 14:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - If he's not notable George Washington is not notable. Baka man 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename He may be quite notable - but are there enough articles that fit this category rather than are made to fit this category to make it viable long-term. Let's see. Some Charles Ollivant (who offered Jinnah a job but was turned down) seem a real stretch unless we want to categorize every job offer under the offeree (hmmm... McDonald's corporation and US Army being two big hirers could just get a few thousand more categories). Carlossuarez46 03:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-viable category. Muhammad Ali Jinnah himself was quite notable but people interested in Muhammad Ali Jinnah need to write more relevant articles that would justify this category before this category is allowed to exist. --- Safemariner 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Certainly a notable individual, but there are nowhere near enough articles to merit an eponymous category. -- Xdamr talk 21:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. Piccadilly 02:05, 1 February 2007 (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.

Category:Iqbaliat

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. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Iqbaliat ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This seems to be intended as a category for the Iqbal bibliography along with some spillover of Iqbal scholars. We already have Category:Books by Muhammad Iqbal and Category:Iqbal scholars so between the two of those this category seems redundant. Otto4711 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Redundant. Xiner ( talk, email) 22:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Category not needed Johnbod 00:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Redundant with other categories, and the name sounds suspiciously neologistic (it sounds like a town in Greenland). Grutness... wha? 05:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Because other categories exist. Also, Iqbaliat is not an English word and this is an English encylopedia. The word Iqbaliat is an Urdu word roughly translating to "the study of Iqbal" --- Safemariner 04:01, 30 January 2007 (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.

Category:Fictional Northern Irish people

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. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional Northern Irish people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No one fits in this category, and in theory if a first fictional character with a wiki article did, we could add them to both the British and Irish categories, or re-create categories, but as it stands this is an empty category and therefore has no value.

I feel I should also note that this category survived a previous CfD due to being kept with other categories but this was under separate rationale to this nomination. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 17:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • If the category was already empty before you touched it, I have no objection to deleting it. If that is not true, please revert any and all pages that may have been removed from the category. I don't recall any of those categories having a population of zero during the previous CFD, but if you say so I'll take your word for it. — CharlotteWebb 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-defining characteristics. Xiner ( talk, email) 22:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete empty category unless we learn it was emptied prematurely. But how could an empty category have survived CfD? Otherwise, I'm not sure. I commented in the previous CfD but preferred no change when we were discussing the group of British categories. Doczilla 09:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I myself voted in that CfD and don't remember it being empty, but it is now :s ~ Zythe Talk to me! 09:42, 29 January 2007 (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.

Category:Fictional Irish

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional Irish ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy merge into Category:Fictional Irish people - duplicate. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 15:51, 28 January 2007 (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.

Category:Fictional traitors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Fictional characters who have committed treason. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional traitors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To whom? In what sense? Do betrayals of trust count? Political treason or just lying to your mother? Indefensibly POV.~ Zythe Talk to me! 15:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Note previous CfD. Otto4711 15:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete you could call anyone a traitor. -- mikedk9109 SIGN 16:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete POV. Xiner ( talk, email) 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for same reasons as last time (thank you Otto4711 above). Let's face it POV issues are a bit less of a concern with fictional characters, and none of the names I recognised from the 97 in the category (Saruman, Peter Pettigrew etc) have much cause for complaint. Johnbod 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • POV is Wikipedia policy.~ Zythe Talk to me! 09:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • He or she wasn't saying that POV isn't something to be concerned with, s/he was clearly saying that it's not POV in these cases. -- Noneofyourbusiness 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • keep I think fictional (almost anything) is useful for browsing. DGG 03:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • No, it isn't. That's one of the things is says not to say in AfD/CfD.~ Zythe Talk to me! 09:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As mentioned above, this was considered for deletion back in November and the concensus was keep it. -- T smitts 03:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Different rationale and lumped along with a comparatively worse category. What the hell is the category supposed to mean? ~ Zythe Talk to me! 09:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The term invokes POV. Term is hard to define. Is the person who blurted out your secret a traitor? The fact that it survived a CfD is not an argument to keep. Many types of fiction consistently have at least one traitor in the cast, making this category excessively broad. Doczilla 06:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, arbitrary or unclear inclusion criteria. >Radiant< 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Would we have a Category:Traitors? Then why a fictional one? -- Vossanova o< 15:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. Sure anyone can be called a traitor, but one either is or isn't and it's easy enough to keep them straight on this Wiki. Saying that this is a vague or arbitrary category is an insult to people's collective intelligence. Noneofyourbusiness 00:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Still makes the whole thing impossible to objectively define.~ Zythe Talk to me! 14:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • No it doesn't, that's what I said. Nearly all fiction is clear-cut. A traitor is someone who has committed treason. This is not a trivial or irrelevant characteristic. -- Noneofyourbusiness 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. POV category, lots of possible examples to ilustrate the problem. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Can you please list any article in this category that has a POV issue? --- Safemariner 04:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Well, maybe some modern Hitler would like to add all "fictional Jews". Or maybe we could add all the cast of Buffy for betraying her in season seven. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 14:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Those are extreme and nonsensical examples. -- Noneofyourbusiness 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Can you please provide real examples that you proferred in your delete nomination. --- Safemariner 05:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep We are talking fiction? right? --- Safemariner 04:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It really is unclear as to who could be listed in this category. Could it include spies who are really double agents? Could it include people who do not support their fictional nations' military actions? Would it include superheroes who turn from "good" to "evil" or vice versa? How many comic book characters would fall into this category, anyway? It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Double agents are traitors to at least one side! --- Safemariner 05:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Vague inclusion criteria and POV. Lesnail 15:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I am still looking for what would make it POV --- Safemariner 05:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I'd like to point out that it's a category for fictional traitors, not fictional betrayers, and a person either has committed treason or hasn't. It isn't POV or vague. -- Noneofyourbusiness 22:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Fictional characters who have committed treason — AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 00:43, 8 February 2007 (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.

Category:Rivers of Styria

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Uperge into Category:Rivers of Austria, with a current population of only 52 rivers, it doesn't make sense to divide them amoung 9 states. -- Prove It (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom. Doesn't seem like there's much chance of filling this category out later. delldot | talk 17:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 22:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Once again we see a proposed merger that would take articles out of one of the two parent categories in which they should be included, whether directly or indirectly. Sumahoy 23:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge, goes too deeply into detail. >Radiant< 15:49, 29 January 2007 (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.

Category:People from Rudrapatna

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge mainly because there's only one article in there. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge into Category:People from Karnataka, Rudrapatna is just a small village in Karnataka. -- Prove It (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom as overcategorization. Rudrapatna has 2,000 people, so I'd say its highly unlikely that there'll ever be more than a couple with Wikipedia articles; therefore, upmerging makes the most sense. Nevertheless, since it was just created yesterday, we should keep open to the possibility that the creator has more people to go in the category. Picaroon 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - Rudrapatna is the bithplace of over 65% of Carnativ singers in Karnataka. Baka man 20:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - This place is home to a number of renowned Carnatic Musicians. There will be a number of articles on its musicians. So, I prefer keeping this category. -- 03:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, so why not recreate if several more biographies are created? Picaroon 21:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge unless and until several more articles actually exist. AshbyJnr 16:17, 3 February 2007 (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.

Category:Electricity companies of the United Kingdom

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 because it really is the sole exception in the parent cat. I'm sure that most countries have slightly different terms. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Power companies of the United Kingdom convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom to comply with convention, for consistency. delldot | talk 17:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom Johnbod 00:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose They are known as electricity companies in the UK. Pinoakcourt 18:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom Semperf 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]. -- Xdamr talk 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Oppose because the term used where people will search for them from is as an Electric Company, not a Power Company. As a sub category, it can still sit in the various upper categories using teh term Power Company. Rgds, - Trident13 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose "Power company" is the American term. Piccadilly 02:07, 1 February 2007 (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.

Category:New Zealand electricity retailers

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. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Power companies of New Zealand convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2007 (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.

Category:Electric Utilities in India

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. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Power companies of India convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2007 (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.

Category:Electricity companies of Norway

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge into Category:Power companies of Norway, convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2007 (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.

Category:The Facts of Life characters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The Facts of Life characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - I combined the five character articles into a single article per WP:FICT and the category is now unneeded. Otto4711 14:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Dismas| (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per abovve. Doczilla 06:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, cast list article preferable to category. Dugwiki 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Wimstead 12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Xdamr talk 21:11, 30 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:People form Erzincan

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:People form Erzincan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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 section.

Category:Deep Throat people

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Deep Throat people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Basically a relisting of people who are connected to this one film, all of which are already mentioned in the article for the film. It's simply pointless repitition. Dismas

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 section.

Towns in the Netherlands

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.
Category:Towns in Drenthe to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Drenthe
Category:Towns in Flevoland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Flevoland
Category:Towns in Friesland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Friesland
Category:Towns in Gelderland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Gelderland
Category:Towns in Groningen to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Groningen
Category:Towns in Dutch Limburg to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Dutch Limburg
Category:Towns in North Holland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in North Holland
Category:Towns in North Brabant to Category:Cities, towns and villages in North Brabant
Category:Towns in South Holland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in South Holland
Category:Towns in Overijssel to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Overijssel
Category:Towns in Utrecht to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Utrecht
Category:Towns in Zeeland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Zeeland
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.

Category:Major League Baseball Draft Picks

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. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Major League Baseball Draft Picks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Only two teams listed as sub-categories, one of which only has one. Unnecessary information, best used if each team would have their own draft pick list. Neonblak 12:23, 28 January 2007 (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.

Category:Boys & Girls Club alumni

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Boys & Girls Club alumni ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - This lists people who participated in Boys and Girls Club of America when they were children. Categorizing people based on their childhood affiliations is impractical, as many people participate in many activities when they are children. The category also communicates little about the accomplishments of the individuals in the category, such as Bill Clinton and Denzel Washington. Moreover, the category contributes to category clutter, as can be seen in the article on Bill Clinton. The category should be deleted. A list of the notable alumni, however, may be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 10:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete List is better. -- mikedk9109 SIGN 16:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Sumahoy 23:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Lesnail 15:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - could be proven, but as the nominator suggests would become impractical to manage. Rgds, - Trident13 22:36, 31 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Debaters

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. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Debaters by nationality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:British debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Indian debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Scottish debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - This category tree list people who have ever been in a debating club or debating society, presumably while they were secondary school or college students. Categorizing people as to the clubs that they belonged to while they were students is impractical and also communicates little about the people's accomplishments. Moreover, many of the people in the category tree (e.g. Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, Bettie Page) are better known for other achievements (e.g. running the U.S. government, undressing, or both of these activities combined together). The category tree should be deleted. (Note that Category:Presidents of the Oxford Union and Category:Presidents of the Cambridge Union Society should be kept, as these are notable debating societies. Both of these categories are also covered under Category:Student debating societies, which should also be kept.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - I share your scepticism if it includes anyone who ever spoke in a debating club or society - and had added 'This category lists people who have been officers or committee members of a debating society or been members of a debating team.' to try and give a more useful and interesting definition and category. But it would require some further tidying up and removal of the tag from people where this no record of having been involved according to this tighter definition. Mpntod 14:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Couldn't anyone call themselves a debater? -- mikedk9109 SIGN 16:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not a defining characteristic for any except master debaters. (sorry, but you knew someone would say it). Otto4711 17:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    Groan ;) delldot | talk 17:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Maybe we should consider creating Category:professional debaters or some such for people for whom this would be a defining characteristic. delldot | talk 17:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Is there actually any such thing as a "professional debater"? Otto4711 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all These are much abused categories that I have been thinking of nominating myself. Many of the inclusions I have seen are pretty ridiculous. Sumahoy 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • delete all because he other ones mentioned here take care of the real needs DGG 03:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per above. Category is vague and not always a defining quality. Doczilla 06:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • delete all per all. Semperf 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Far too vague. As per Mikedk9109, anyone can call themselves a 'Debater'. -- Xdamr talk 21:13, 30 January 2007 (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.

Category:1996 campaign finance scandal

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. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:1996 campaign finance scandal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - Not every presidential scandal warrants its own category. This is the only scandal in Category:Clinton administration controversies that has its own category, and it does not even appear to be the most prominent scandal that Clinton faced while U. S. President. Moreover, the category includes multiple people and articles that otherwise may only be peripherally associated with the topic. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- mikedk9109 SIGN 16:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not useful. Xiner ( talk, email) 22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is the sort of category that is not a problem on the articles about the least important associated people and things, but has to go because it is clutter on the major articles. Sumahoy 23:33, 28 January 2007 (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.

Category:Politicians killed during election campaign

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Politicians who died during an election campaign, for grammatical correctness, and the fact that not all the politicians were killed, some died of disease.-- Jack Cox 05:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete difficult to manage category. Listify in order to explain and provide sources. (And aren't politicians almost always campaigning anyway?) Wryspy 09:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename They aren't always campaigning. -- mikedk9109 SIGN 16:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. In some cases, this could make the person notable. But for the vast majority of potential members in this category, it is only one event in their careers. Over classification. Vegaswikian 20:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Assassinations in general may deserve a cat, if one doesn't exist already. Xiner ( talk, email) 22:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - We would not categorize other people based on whether or not they died while they were working or actively employed. While this kind of trivia for politicians is vaguely interesting, it is inappropriate for a category. Dr. Submillimeter 23:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Dr S; this might make an intesting subject for a lsit, but it's not a defining attribute needing a category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wryspy. Unless term-limited out with no other possible office available to them, I would think that politicians are always campaigning at least on this side of the pond. Carlossuarez46 03:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is going to be random. I mean, "assassinated while running for office" would be better (although even that would be better as a list) but this makes no sense. -- lquilter 04:31, 31 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Virgin hilltowns

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 09:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, "Medieval hill towns in near pristine state and little known to tourists." Sounds like a travel magazine. -- Prove It (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Albums from Rap-A-Lot Records

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. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Rap-A-Lot Records albums, convention of Category:Albums by record label. -- Prove It (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy rename. Cjmarsicano 04:07, 28 January 2007 (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.

Category:Jewish Simpsons characters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Jewish Simpsons characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Unneeded category cruft. Also, there are only a few Jewish Simpsons characters. Scorpion 02:07, 28 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_28&oldid=1136103348"