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 Speedy rename. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled for Darkwing Duck characters. Supermorff 22:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete mis-spelt category. Sam Vimes 16:55, 23 November 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:1970 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season
• Category:1971 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season
• Category:1974 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season
• Category:2005-06 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons
• Category:2006-07 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons

All empty. --Kbdank71 20:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if these are up because they are the wrong names, which I think is the case. Vegaswikian 23:51, 22 November 2005 (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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As everyone who frequents CFD knows, we strongly discourage abbreviations in category names. Therefore, I am thinking that we could use the same title that Encarta uses. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete rather than rename. This category is a severely inferior version of List of NFL first overall draft choices, which should be linked from the appropriate player pages. Including information content by adding categories is (IMO) a misuse of categories. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. It's a good idea to pick out the more notable people when there is an objective way to do so. Honbicot

  ... and the list does exactly this, and includes the team and the year and the player's college and the player's position and the selecting team!! As an added bonus, the list is complete while the category ignores players who don't have an article yet. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed Most categories are incomplete Rick. CalJW 05:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed Seems like it would be rather cumbersome to link to that list on every player page. the category fits right in there.--Alhutch 19:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is, but capitalize correctly (only "draft" need be capitalized); no compelling reason presented to rename. "NFL" is a reasonable abbreviation to include in a category title. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2005 (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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is an incomplete and very sparsely populated group of categories for American professional wrestlers by state. They appear to have been created in response to concern about the size of the parent category. This was previously marked with the "verylarge" template, which states that articles should all be moved from the parent category to the subcategory. This is highly undesirable as state affinities are of little relevance to professional wrestling and subcategorisation hinders access to the articles. I probably create more subcategories than any other user, but I still feel that there are some categories for which useful subcategorisation is not possible. If such categories get very large, that's just something we have to live with.

• Category:Professional wrestlers from Texas
• Category:Professional wrestlers from West Virginia
• Category:Professional wrestlers from Ohio
• Category:Professional wrestlers from Florida
• Category:Professional wrestlers from California
• Category:Professional wrestlers from New York
• Category:Professional wrestlers from Hawaii

Merge all into Category:American professional wrestlers CalJW 14:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've only heard of Hulk Hogan and Stone Cold Steve Austin and I don't know which states they came from. Honbicot 17:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Leftovers of a period where the wrestling wikiproject people used way too many categories.--Darren Jowalsen 04:09, 24 November 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant and empty category - proper category is Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Willmcw 07:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Honbicot 17:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning was opened 25 November 2005 --maclean25 00:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. BD2412 T 02:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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 --Kbdank71 15:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is inherently POV. The term "born-again Christians" is subjective, the interpretation varies among churches and between specific individuals. I don't believe a concrete definition could be made or agreed upon. I vote delete. Foofy 06:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a complex world, and wikipedia can't reflect that if it only has categories with hard and fast boundaries. Osomec 09:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Every religious term is subjective. Deleting this category while leaving every other religious faith category intact is unacceptable; include in this category only individuals who clearly self-identify as being born-again Christians, and reserve any disputable or especially controversial entries for List of born-again Christian laypeople, where it's possible to explain the specifics, the claims and counter-claims, and to cite sources and quote individuals of relevance to the "born-again-ness" of the individual listed. The exact same principle should be employed for every list and category related to belief: put the relatively agreed-upon (and by "agreed-upon" I mean agreed-upon in the world at large, not "agreed-upon" in Wikipedia—if a single person says "X shouldn't be in this category" and fails to cite souces in support or give a very compelling argument, that shouldn't typically be good enough) entries in the Category, and use the List to explain and detail the more complex entries and to cite sources for both the list and the category. -Silence 14:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bhoeble 12:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. What part did you not read, "self-identified"? Plus, the Bible gives a clear definition of what Born-again is, saved. I don't care what churches think, they don't make rules in Christianity, the Bible does. This is also what we have Wiktionary for. Plus, you must make conclusions based upon the primary religious texts of that Faith. Looks like thus far the overwhelming vote has been keep. Эрон Кинней 11:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I don't care what churches think" is exactly what I meant by POV. Interpretation of the Bible itself is subjective, it changes from translation to translation. While the term "Christian" is fairly specific (you either believe in Christ or you don't), "born again" can have so many different definitions across different sects of Christianity or even interpretations of the Bible. We don't need this level of categorization, especially when it is vague at best. I understand the consensus is "keep," but that's mainly because the only people who care about this category are those who contribute to it. -- Foofy 21:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonsense. I care about this category and don't contribute to it at all. If you think this category is unforgivably vague, work on improving List of born-again Christian laypeople such that it corrects all of this category's oversights and inaccurate generalizations, providing proper sources and for its entries, and include everyone from the category in that list. (I'd also recommend moving it to just List of born-again Christians, as the "laypeople" is silly.) But I won't support deleting this category until it can be shown that it is as worthless as you claim; having more than one solid, hard definition, on its own, is not good enough, as all religious and spiritual terminology is plagued by vagueness; for example, if Christianity is just "believing in Christ", then why isn't Adolf Hitler listed in Category:Roman Catholics?. However, I do agree with you that Kinneyboy90's comments are heavily POVed. What the Bible thinks and what Churches think are equally relevant to an encyclopedia; to favor one over the other would be blatantly biased. -Silence 21:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, you must make your conclusions based upon the primary religious texts of that Faith, not personal or individual interpretations. There is nothing POVed in that. Oh, and my comments aren't biased. Isn't the religious text what defines its doctrines in a religion, or do you disagree with that, too? Эрон Кинней 22:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course I disagree with that, many religions didn't even have standard religious texts—like the Roman religion, and Unitarian Universalism. What defines a religion is what its practitioners believe, not what some arbitrary book says. If one sect of Christianity says "the Bible is all that matters, it is the first and last source of Truth on all things", then for that sect of Christianity, the Bible is by far the most important source for doctrinal information; if another sect of Christianity says "the Bible is important, but the Church's decrees are just as important and must always be kept in consideration", then for that sect of Christianity, the Bible and the Church are both vitally important sources for doctrinal information; and if another sect of Christianity says, "the Bible is completely irrelevant, as it was fabricated and distorted from Jesus the Christ's true words, which we know of from a different, much more reliable source", then for that sect of Christianity, the Bible is irrelevant for doctrinal information. What's so complicated about that? -Silence 22:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Don't see anything wrong with it. FCYTravis 06:56, 29 November 2005 (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, empty --Kbdank71 15:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate category CG janitor 05:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge CalJW 05:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy (Category:Nursing_Organizations is empty). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All of these together encompass 4 articles on cruisers, which realistically only need one category. Joshbaumgartner 04:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose World War II ships should be in a WWII category. CalJW 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nothing prevents the article from being in a WWII category. There is no rule stating that articles must only be in a single category. - SimonP 14:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that, but any WWII categories other than the present ones will be annoyingly imprecise. It is not good to leave large numbers of articles hanging around loose when they can be nearly categorised. CalJW 15:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Honbicot 17:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not all cruisers were around during WWII - not all ships are cruisers. The first category should be a subcat of both the second and third, which should remain in parallel. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Jinian 19:41, 22 November 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous CfDs, exchange country adjective with noun. Joshbaumgartner 04:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Proposed name is clumsy and not normal English. None of these vessles ferried the continent of Australia anywhere, it is only moved by plate tectonics. CalJW 05:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? --Kbdank71 15:28, 29 November 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough articles to warrant sub-categorization. Joshbaumgartner 04:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Naval ships should be in naval categories. CalJW 05:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nothing prevents the articles themselves from being in a naval category. There is no rule stating that articles must only be in a single category. - SimonP 14:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And no reason to categorise imprecisely when one can categorise accurately. I put articles into extra categories every day. CalJW 15:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not all ships are naval - not all ships are submarines. Cat 2 should be a subcat of cat 1, which should be a subcat of cat 3. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose What Grutness said. Jinian 16:10, 22 November 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excess extra categories to get to one article. New category in line with previous CfD discussion regarding Category:Naval ships of China. Joshbaumgartner 04:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Categories facilitate navigation to the subcategory from different directions. CalJW 05:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Overcategorization. - SimonP 14:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with caveat. Support iff all Chinese submarines are in the "People's Liberation Army Navy" (is that name right?) and none are used for other purposes (e.g., coastguard, police, other government agencies, tourism). Grutness...wha? 00:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, doesn't HK have some commercial subs? That would be PROC but not PLAN. And Chinese submarines is a good catchall for ROC, PROC, HK, Macau, Imperial China. 132.205.44.134 01:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT China is supposedly one country (one-country two-Chinas policy)... so the "by country" cat should be China, with PROC and ROC as subcats. 132.205.45.110 19:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, China doesn't equal PLAN. Jinian 16:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the latter two. — Instantnood 18:34, 23 November 2005 (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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate category tree for classes not needed, and is not used for most country's, including big ones. Submarines category is sufficient for articles on both individual submarines and submarine classes. Joshbaumgartner 04:58, 21 November 2005 (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.