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< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already well covered by Category:Led Zeppelin. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCAT#Eponymous categories for people. Doczilla 04:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 05:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Eponymous categories should only be used for biographical articles on the main subject. This category is not used that way. Dr. Submillimeter 09:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Minus improper categorisation there is absolutely no content here. Per Dr. Submillimeter, eponymous categories are, and should only be, biographical in ambit. --Xdamr^talk 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Doczilla. Lakers 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rgds, - Trident13 17:28, 1 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 08:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current Serie B players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete for the same reasons as Category:Current Serie A players, which is listed separately. Brandon97 22:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Abberley2 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agreed as above. Lakers 06:51, 30 March 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.

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< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip episodes, convention of Category:Episodes by television series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Pretty clear cut. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is this category for a cancelled TV show really necessary at all? Doczilla 04:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where else would the episode articles be categorized? Rename per nom and convention. Otto4711 05:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per convention.--DorisHノート 07:13, 29 March 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.

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 Merge. --Xdamr^talk 08:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Canadian writers, convention of Category:Writers by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Abberley2 12:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and per convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. Lakers 06:53, 30 March 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.

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 Merge. --Xdamr^talk 08:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Canadian actors, or Keep. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and March 13 discussion. Otto4711 05:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and March 13 discussion AshbyJnr 21:08, 31 March 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.

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 Merge. --Xdamr^talk 08:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Ottoman Greece to Category:Ottoman Greece

• Merge, Main article was recently renamed Ottoman Greece from History of Ottoman Greece. Category should reflect his move. Damac 22:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Annandale 17:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Lakers 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Wimstead 12:11, 1 April 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.

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< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:1950s TV shows in the United Kingdom to Category:1950s British television series
• Category:1970s TV shows in the United Kingdom to Category:1970s British television series
• Category:1980s TV shows in the United Kingdom to Category:1980s British television series
• Category:1990s TV shows in the United Kingdom to Category:1990s British television series
• Category:2000s TV shows in the United Kingdom to Category:2000s British television series
• Remame per similar debate on American series cats (found here). There is no "1960s" cat. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 21:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 12:11, 1 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 08:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beck ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An unnecessary eponymous category as described in WP:OCAT#Eponymous categories for people. The only subcategories are "songs by artist" and "albums by artists", neither of which requries a seperate eponymous category for the artist. Likewise neither of the articles needs to be in this category as the links can simply be provided in his main article for navigation. Dugwiki 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. Dugwiki 17:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per copious precedent. Note that Mouldy Crouton is up at AFD. Otto4711 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, bad idea. Carlossuarez46 02:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lakers 06:51, 30 March 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.

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< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Louisville, Kentucky, convention of Category:People by city in the United States, or the reverse. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge (into Category:People from Louisville) for consistency with peer categories in Category:Louisville, Kentucky. Apparently there is only one (Louisville redirects to Louisville, Kentucky). ~ BigrTex 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:People from Louisville, Kentucky per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Lakers 01:32, 31 March 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.

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< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People executed under the Stuarts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as misleadingly broad category which conflates radically different periods of British history. This category presently includes executions in both the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, in three distinct periods: a) 1603-1649 (under James VI and I and Charles I), then after the interregnum b) 1660-1688 under Charles II and James VII and II; c) 1689-1694 under Mary II after the Glorious Revolution, though that era of joint monarchy may be better labelled as House of Orange-Nassau; d) under Anne from 1702 to 1714. This was a century of great upheaval, and both the execution of Charles I and the overthrow of James VII and II marked radical changes in British history, and if executions in these periods are to be categorised in relation to the crown, they should be categorised by monarch rather than under a broad House of Stuart category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and categorize by Monarch instead. --DorisHノート 17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not replace. Not all executions in the period were political. Haddiscoe 17:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Haddiscoe, I suspect that only a minority of executions then were in any way political: the overused Halifax Gibbet, for example, appears to have been busy solely with criminals. But I can see a case for a category which groups executions by time period, howeverthat time is defined. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The organization of executions by head of state seems inappropriate here. As alluded to by Haddiscoe, many common criminals may have been executed during this time period. In some ways, execution was a non-notable practice at the time. Dr. Submillimeter 18:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but there are not likely to be all that many articles on wikipedia about individual 17th century common criminals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 20:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and perhaps Divide) These seem useful categories. The whole Period covered is what is usually meant by "the Stuarts" (Scotland excluded), and doing it by reign would be over-categorisation at the current level. Don't just delete anyway. Johnbod 03:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To avoid loss of data, I have saved the current membership of the category to User:BrownHairedGirl/List of people executed under the Stuarts, so the data is available for any more appropriate category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The reigning monarch is irrelevant to categorisation of executions. Certainly some were 'political' while others were 'criminal', but drawing this distinction is, to my mind, a POV judgement. The appropriate bio article is more than capable of discussing the circumstances surrounding it. Replace with by-century execution categories. --Xdamr^talk 11:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nonsense. Lakers 06:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Revise - to split into Scottish and English jurisdictions. We need a less contentious name. under the Stuarts seems to suggest too personal a jurisdiction for many executions of th period. Jaraalbe 22:43, 2 April 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.

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< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People executed under the Hanovarians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as irrelevant intersection. In this period, the monarch's power was limited to the ability to pardon, but not to order executions, so it would be more useful to split this category to Category:18th century executions by Great Britain and Category:19th century executions by the United Kingdom, to fit with other categories such as Category:19th century in the United Kingdom. (note that the United Kingdom was only created in 1801; from 1707-1800, England, Scotland and Wales formed the Kingdom of Great Britain; also the use of the word "by" rather than in to include executions carried out by British forces overseas. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • To avoid loss of data, I have saved the current contents of the category to User:BrownHairedGirl/List of people executed under the Hanoverians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The organization of executions by head of state seems inappropriate here. Dr. Submillimeter 14:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not replace. By this period few executions were political, and even those that were were not necessarily closely related to the wishes of the monarch. Haddiscoe 17:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 20:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoever populated it has included executions in former British colonies such as Western Australia. Is there consensus to consider these "executions by Great Britain / the United Kingdom"? Hesperian 23:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same thing has been done with executions under British rule in India. I would suggest that those articles are removed, and classified under something like Category:Executions in British colonies (possibly subdivided by country as in Category:Executions in colonial Australia), with a clear note that these cats are only for executions in the colonial period. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Replace As in the one above, it might be more useful to divide them another way, but this is not what you are proposing. If they are deleted the information/grouping will just be lost, which would be bad. Johnbod
  • The information will not be lost. This categ could be easily recreated using AWB, but to avoid any doubt I have saved the data to User:BrownHairedGirl/List of people executed under the Hanoverians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, lots of information which could easily be recreated using AWB never is. I do think the POV spin on this is a complete red herring. Johnbod 01:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace per nom. --Xdamr^talk 11:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV category. Wimstead 12:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and migrate entries to Category:18th century executions by Great Britain (or later as appropriate). Jaraalbe 22:46, 2 April 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.

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 Rename. --Xdamr^talk 08:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Greek rock music groups, convention of Category:Rock music groups by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Doczilla 18:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - per nom, more appropriate title. Lakers 06:52, 30 March 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.

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< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Overland expeditions to Category:to be determined by consensus

Category:Road rallying to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Originally, this was just Category:Road rallying but someone decided that since some of the events took place off-road that we would need another category for off-road untimed rallies (Category:Overland expeditions). This doesn't strike me as the best way to do this, since they are basically the same thing and there is considerable overlap. Personally I think sticking them all under "road rallying" is fine, since that is what the concept seems to be called, but I wanted to get other suggestions from people to see if we can avoid the road/off-road thing. Maybe something along the lines of Category:Untimed rallying or Category:Non-race rallying or Category:Hell, I don't know. Recury 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an old related CFD. Recury 14:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my recommendation to merge Overland expeditions back into Road rallying. Recury 16:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've played in both, and whether there's a road or not, they're still just called road rallies. Sometimes they're races and sometimes not, but they're always road rallies, in my experience.--Mike Selinker 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So merge Overland expeditions to Road rallying then, you would say? Recury 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they all involve vehicles, then yes.--Mike Selinker 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, they do. Recury 16:29, 30 March 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.

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< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People executed under the Saxe-Coburgs to Category:20th century executions by the United Kingdom

Nominator's Rationale: Rename The monarchy had long since had no role in ordering executions, and since 1837 the Royal prerogative of mercy had been exercised by the Home Secretary. The categorisation by monarchy is therefore a largely irrelevant intersection, only useful as a categorisation by time period, and the change of name of the Royal House from Saxe-Coburg to Windsor is not a sufficiently significant moment in wider British history for it to define a historical era for non-royal purposes. If the cat is renamed to "20th century", the articles from Category:People executed under the Windsors can be aded in here too (that category looks likely to be deleted at its CFD, but the CFD is too far advanced to usefully make a new proposal of merger. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The organization of executions by head of state seems inappropriate here. Dr. Submillimeter 14:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 17:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and do not create by-monarch categories, as they would allege direct monarchial involvement which was rarely present. Choalbaton 21:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoever populated this category has included executions in former British colonies such as Western Australia. Is there consensus to include these as "executions by the United Kingdom"? Hesperian 23:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I'm not sure what to make of the 'delete per nom' comments, given that BrownHairedGirl explicitly advocates renaming. Presumably we all mean the same thing, for this scheme, 'executions-by-royal-house', to be replaced with 'executions-by-century-?

Xdamr^talk 11:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Abberley2 12:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. A little more clarity as to what these nominations are proposing would have been desirable. Johnbod 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dr. Submillimeter, and no not convert into anything else, so as to eliminate the dodgy usage referred to by Hesperian. Wimstead 12:14, 1 April 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.

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 Rename. --Xdamr^talk 08:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Politics in Somerset to Category:Politics of Somerset

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention for sub-categories of Category:Politics of England. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per obvious convention (could almost be a speedy). Support added to this obviously sensible suggestion only to ensure that some overly timid admin doesn't ignore the rules of CfD and close this as no concensus. Xtifr _tälk 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. Rgds, - Trident13 12:12, 1 April 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.

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 merge Category:Lists of fictional characters by distinguishing feature into Category:Lists of fictional characters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very small and not clearly defined what coutns as a "distinguishing feature". Upmerge with parent cat. >Radiant< 11:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too vague. It appears to be effectively a category for "Lists of fictional characters which don't seem to fit into any other subcategory", and we don't create "miscellaneous" categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Given what is in this category, it is difficult to distinguish what is a "distinguishing feature". Apparently, being omnipotent is as distinguishing as being mute. Dr. Submillimeter 13:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Lists of fictional characters I think this category might have been intended as a way to group some "similar looking" lists from the parent into one place. Even so, I agree with the comments above that the criteria is pretty vague. Upmerge the lists back to the parent category. Dugwiki 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Haddiscoe 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 04:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge - Lakers 01:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:03, 4 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 no consensus. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_28#Category:Models_who_committed_suicide below, and After Midnight's comment here. The entire system of categorising suicides seems to need attention. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic. That a celeb killed himself is far more important than how he did it (with a rope, gun, poison, etc). >Radiant< 11:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this category is helpful in managing the large number of deaths by suicide. Method of suicide is relevant IMO. Also not just "celebs", any notable person/suicide is plausibly up for this categorisation scheme. --ZayZayEM 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - we've already discussed it before, in previous nomination [1]. I can only repeat my arguments: "Such lists provide valuable help for, for example, a historician who wants to make a research on popular methods of suicide by an epoch, or a psychiatrist may be able to do a significiant research by finding correlations between suicide methods and other factors (epoch, diagnosis, profession of person, nationality, location, etc). It's useful navigational and categorizational mechanism. Also, note that a subcategories includes various ritual suicides, such as Seppuku - I suppose there's no doubt that it's useful to be able to get a list of Japanese people who committed seppuku?" --GreyCat
• Weak delete. While I can't quibble with the methodology of the categories (hence the "weak" part), the utility of it is questionable to me. I can see lots of scholarship around people that killed themselves, and types of people that killed themselves, and even why people killed themselves, but I find very little commonality around how people killed themselves. These methods don't "advance" internally in technology or effectiveness much, so a hanging suicide in 1770 is pretty much the same as one in 1970. So in interest of reducing death-category clutter, I'd delete these. (Though the Seppuku category is interesting in its own right.)--Mike Selinker 14:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GreyCat as a useful tool for research (suicide is a much-researched subject). Mike Selinker is right to say that "a hanging suicide in 1770 is pretty much the same as one in 1970", so these categories do define a clear commonality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like it's probably a useful categorization for people who study suicide as it allows them to look at cases of specific types of suicide. For example, are certain methods of suicide more likely for certain types of individuals and certain types of situations? What factors might influence how someone goes about committing suicide, and what sorts of measures can be taken to help prevent vulnerable people from committing suicide by various methods? It's not necessarily just about the morbid curiosity factor of how a "celebrity" killed themselves. Dugwiki 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining. The category system is not a database tool. Haddiscoe 17:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a database, but it is a navigational tool to index articles on general subjects that readers want to peruse. It's certainly possible that someone studying suicide might want to look at articles as possible cornerstones for case studies on various types of suicide. Dugwiki 16:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all There are far too many death related categories on lots of articles, it is quite disproportionate. The search box can be used to find words such as "hanging". Choalbaton 21:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you try typing "hanging" in the search box, you'll get a large number of articles unrelated to death by hanging. And even among the articles that do involve death by hanging, a large number of those aren't about suicides. So if you were trying to find articles about people who hanged themselves the search box is an inefficient tool in this case. Dugwiki 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep how one dies -- like when and where one is born -- seems about as defining as one gets in biography. Carlossuarez46 02:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The method of execution which was used by the relevant jurisdiction at the time of a person's death has nothing to do with whether what he or she did while alive is worth recording after the event. Abberley2 12:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI these are articles about suicides, not executions. I'd also probably dispute you and say that causes of death in and of themselves are useful areas of study in their own right. Dugwiki 16:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. This is non-defining characteristics. One more problem with suicides is that it is not something the relatives boast about all over and any verification may be hard/impossible/permanently disputed/influenced by media lies. Pavel Vozenilek 11:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. Wimstead 12:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, I think this is every bit as much of a defining characteristic as place and date of birth (which is to say, not a lot, but enough to justify inclusion). Verification will not generally be a problem either, as suicides are often investigated by the police. In cases where verification is hard/impossible/permanently disputed, the solution is simple: don't apply the category. But if the death certificate says suicide, then there generally won't be much question. Xtifr _tälk 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll note that we don't categorize by place of birth. Also, from reading your comment here, it appears that you are mistakenly arguing for keeping Category:Suicides, which is not up for deletion here. Don't worry, that's not on the table. — coelacan — 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't strictly categorize by place of birth, but we do have extensive People from location categories whic are most commonly used for place of birth. And yes, I'm aware that this isn't Category:Suicides, which is why I said weak keep; for that category, I would have said strong. Xtifr _tälk 21:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for making clear that you were indeed talking about this category. Sorry I sort of misread you. To the topic, it is true that "people from" usually amounts to "born in", and that's a good point. I guess this is because it is pretty common in conversation to ask, "so where are you from?" I would point out that on the other hand, we don't categorize by location of death, which although it is noted in infoboxes, does not seem to be notable enough to categorize by (things categorized are generally held to a higher standard of notability than things simply mentioned in articles). Without running too far down this alley, since I might have made another bad analogy =P if you have time I'd be open to hearing any response you might have to my comment directly below. — coelacan — 03:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. This is a textbook case of non-defining characteristics. Methods of suicides are most often predicated upon what the person has available to them. Those who own guns, use guns. Those who don't, use a razor or knife in the bathtub or raid the medicine cabinet. Those with a car and a garage often use carbon monoxide. Those who live near tall buildings, often jump. Those who are in prison hang themselves with bedsheets. It's all a matter of opportunism, and thus hardly notable. Categorization reads too much deliberation into opportunity. — coelacan — 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most people have multiple options available to them (and I strongly doubt your theory that anyone who owns a gun will use that as their first choice). I do not believe that it's merely a matter of opportunism; I suspect that many (probably most) suicides weigh their options, and think that the method chosen may well reveal important facts about the individual, which is why I think this is, at least slightly, a defining characteristic. Although I suspect it's no more than slightly a defining characteristic, which is why I said "weak keep" above, and why I won't be upset if "delete" carries the day. Xtifr _tälk 11:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some people are surprised to learn this, but suicide really is opportunistic. Reducing the availability of guns reduces the overall number of suicides,[2] because guns are the very easiest way to kill yourself (quick, painless, private). When dealing with opportunistic actions, some people have more determination than others. Guns need relatively little determination, which is why when someone you know is talking about suicide, prevention centers advise you to surreptitiously remove the guns from their house. In fact, guns are so easy and so common to use that "suicides [account] for about 70% of gun deaths".[3] So the fact that someone used a gun to kill themself really only tells us that they were suicidal (so they go in category:suicides) and they owned a gun. There's nothing more you can read into it. — coelacan — 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that one is a bit tough. On one hand, there is no similar set of categories for Category:Murder victims, but on the other hand, there are 612 articles which are subordinate to Category:Suicides by methods which should probably be recat'ed because I checked several of them and not one was in another suicide category. I'm going to vote Upmerge all articles in the subcats to Category:Suicides until each can be recategorized into a more appropriate subcategory. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per GreyCat's rationale. Olessi 21:03, 4 April 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only point of this category is to be a placeholder for the "flora" and "fauna" categories. Every single category like Category:Biota of Brazil only ever contains the subcategories Category:Fauna of Brazil and Category:Flora of Brazil. Thus the "biota" cats form an entirely unnecessary extra layer that only makes it harder, not easier, to find stuff. >Radiant< 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overcategorisation.--ZayZayEM 11:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, to my suprise. I thought that this one was a clear delete per nom as overcategorisation. However, the category does have a maintenance use: I just expanded some of the categories, and spotted a lot of countries which don't have a "Flora of foo" category (there is no Category:Flora of Russia, Category:Flora of Portugal etc. It wouldn't be a big job to complete those series, but I think it would be useful to keep Category:Biota by country until that job is done, and then delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a useful debate on the use of Flora/Fauna by county on the talk page. If this category is deleted can this be preserved. GameKeeper 12:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful cat. Also, flora and fauna don't include fungi, for example. Guettarda 12:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I had been working with several other people on either upmerging "fauna by country" categories into "fauna by ecozone/continent" categories (e.g. Category:Fauna of Europe) or renaming the categories to indicate that the categories are for endemic animals only (e.g. Category: Endemic fauna of Hawaii). The general consensus in many discussions (e.g. Category talk:Biota by country, here, and here) was not to use the "fauna by country" categorization system for multiple reasons. I ceased work on these categories because of continuous conflicts with KP Botany, but I will support other merge/rename nominations for subcategories in Category:Biota by country. Dr. Submillimeter 13:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Guettarda. Avenue 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Haddiscoe 17:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this is useful as are all such high level categories for organizing material. Hmains 02:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The plants v animals dichotomy is old hat. Eventually we'll also have biota by country categories for fungi. protists? bacteria? Hesperian 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And, Dr. Submillimeter, if you don't want to hear from me, don't continue talking about me, and about the so-called "conflicts" with me, which I attempted to resolve, and you decided needed dropped. I dropped it at your request, now if you want it dropped, keep it dropped. And, in the future, instead of answering my questions with comments like WP:POINT that have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue, simply lay our your arguments and reasoning for the deleltion--that's all it ever was about, understanding what was best for Wikipedia. If you want these things deleted, then be prepared to explain why, if you don't, then drop it, and drop me out of it. KP Botany 04:40, 29 March 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.

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: there appears to be an emerging consensus to merge, but it would be better to do a group nomination that includes the other "<profession> who commited suicide" cats. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Models who committed suicide - Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic - jc37 08:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Suicides - At the moment, Category:Suicides is divided by occupation, which seems strange. Wikipedia generally does not categorize people by the cross section of occupation and cause of death except for suicides. It generally seems inappropriate; the entire category tree may need to be nominated for discussion at some point. Dr. Submillimeter 08:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. There doesn't seem to be any reason to single out models from the other occupational sub-categories of Category:Suicides, and if we are going to consider the occupational sub-cats, they should be considered as a whole.
  Pre-empting that discussion a little, I think that suicides are different from other causes of death, because they are deaths at the person's own hand. In some cases the suicide is related to the occupation: there is plenty of data on wildly different suicide rates in different occupations, so it is not a random intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - occupation is not that relevant.--ZayZayEM 11:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But why delete only one occupational subcat of Category:Suicides? Why this one rather than, e.g. Category:Musicians who committed suicide or Category:Nobility who committed suicide? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I built most of this categorization scheme because Category:Suicides was exploding. This is a far better way to split up the suicides than by method of death (see above), as these people have a commonality. Unless you want a couple thousand articles in Category:Suicides, you have to pick one of these subcategorization schemes, and I pick this one.--Mike Selinker 14:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Keep. There is generally no principle in Wikipedia that category spanning should be a strict tree. In many cases it's useful to have several categorization schemes, may be intersecting. For example, people can be classified both by occupation, by nationality, by their epoch, etc - all at the same time - same thing here. --GreyCat
• Renominate as umbrella including all the other "suicide by occupation" categories I would agree that these suicide-by-occupation categories should be handled consistently. Personally I'd support deleting all of them since occupation seems like a tenuous link, but I'll keep an open mind for now on that point. Either way, I think the best course of action is to restart this particular cfd discussion under a new thread which includes all the similar categories. That way we don't have an odd patchwork of occupational subcategories under Category:Suicides. Dugwiki 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Please withdraw nomination and make an umbrella nomination as suggested above. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment If someone would help with the tagging, I would have no problem with this being relisted as a group nom. - jc37 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Suicides, let's have thousands of articles there if there are thousands of suicides, unless we categorize them by method. If we had thousands of people born in 1950, would we start Category:Models born in 1950? Carlossuarez46 02:09, 29 March 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Decapitated terrorist victims to Category:Victims of terrorist beheadings

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. The current category title came about due to a previous CFD discussion. However, unless I'm mistaken, the current category title implies that it concerns "victims of decapitation who were terrorists" rather than "people who were beheaded by terrorists". I believe the title I propose, Category:Victims of terrorist beheadings, appropriately addresses the issue. Black Falcon 07:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge into the more useful Category:Terrorism victims. Doczilla 07:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Terrorism victims - Except for beheadings, terrorist victims are not sorted according to the method of death. Dr. Submillimeter 08:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that we should not have subcategories for victims of terrorist car bombs, grenades, small arms fire, etc., but beheadings seem to garner particular attention. Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg, who received extensive coverage after their deaths, are illustrative examples, I think. -- Black Falcon 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This does not seem like a good rationale for keeping the category. In another year or two, the execution of some other high-profile person using a different method may lead to that other method garnering attention. I have the impression that this category simply traces a short term trend, not something that will be of interest in the long term. Dr. Submillimeter 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope that in the near future, terrorist beheading may be something we can refer to in the past tense. But right now, it's a much-noted practice, and I suggest we review this one when it is in the past tense, but not before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think it is good rationale. If terrorists begin to use another means of prolific specific mediated form of victimisation (murder), it should probably get it's own category.Eg Category people tortured to death with Celine Dion music by terrorists. The number of specific beheading victims is sufficiently large and signifiacnt to allow a category for them.--ZayZayEM 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename to Category:People decapitated by terrorists, because beheading redirects to decapitation, and its better to use the term from the head article. In general, I think that it is inappropriate to separate terrorism victims by method of killing, but the recent spate of beheadings by terrorists has been a very notable and widely-referenced feature of some of the recent conflicts in which terrorism has been involved. This one is worth keeping as an exception to the rule, and currently contains 13 articles (I hadn't realised there had been that many, so the category has taught me something already!).
  I have created Category:Deaths by decapitation to link this one to Category:People executed by decapitation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 28 March 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.

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 WP:SNOW delete and as the abuse of the category space as an article—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alejandro Turla Quiboloy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This is an article about a non-notable minister whose category reads like a complete article. No articles are included under this "category". Tito Pao 03:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete almost unpopulated category per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 07:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla and because it's an article in category space. It's a very badly-written article, but I think that the person concerned may be notable, so I don't want to presume that a properly-written article would fail to establish notability ... but there's no reason to retain this hagiography by moving it to article space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The original author/s of this "category" created another article about this person. It's up for AfD as well. --- Tito Pao 02:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A Google search on this person turns up almost nothing outside of Wikipedia. This person is non-notable. Dr. Submillimeter 18:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Carlossuarez46 02:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and above. Lakers 01:31, 31 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People who have renounced Judaism. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Jews ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete the category has already been deleted once (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 9#Category:Former_Jews). Basically the rationale now, as it was then, is that the term "Jewish/Jew" encompasses an ethnicity as well as a religion.--Jersey Devil 03:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- please remember that this category is a SUBCATEGORY of Category:People by former religion -- thus it deals with the religious side rather than the ethnic one. The fact that people think that this is a stand-alone category (when it is clearly not) is not even taken in to consideration. If this category is deleted then Category:Former Protestants, Category:Former Muslims, Category:Former Scientologists, Category:Ex-Mormons, etc. must be deleted as well in the interests of NPOV. One can't just "pick and choose" which categories to leave in and which ones to delete when they are all valid under the main category heading ("People by former religion"). --WassermannNYC 05:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP -- this category was recently recreated (and for good reason): someone recreated this category and I started adding names a little while ago; it looks like it was deleted before (for whatever reason?). Deletion doesn't make sense though considering that we have a whole host of people categorized by former religion(s) at Category:People by former religion including former Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Scientologists, etc -- so what about the former Jews? Why no category for them? I won't add any more names to this category until the issues with this category are resolved, though. Or perhaps this cat. could simply be renamed to Category:Former adherents of Judaism? --WassermannNYC 03:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. As per rationale Jew is also ethnicity. Suggest "People who have renounced Judaism" or something similar as more appropriate.--ZayZayEM 03:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the added ethnic component when it comes to Jews and Judaism does indeed make this category extra tricky. Your proposed name of Category:People who have renounced Judaism is decent. However, per all of the categories in Category:People by former religion, it seems that this Category:Former Jews should stay in line with the accepted format, i.e. "Category:Former [religion]" (see Category:Former Roman Catholics, Category:Former Muslims, etc). --WassermannNYC 03:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR. This category is an obviously needed exception to the current format.--ZayZayEM 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jew is an ethnicity, not a religion. You cannot "convert" out of an ethnicity. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 03:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- but 'being a Jew' isn't ENTIRELY an ethnic issue. It is both ethnic AND religious, and this is why I believe Jews are best described (broadly) as an "ethno-religious group." A non-ethnic Jew can convert to the traditional religion of the ethnic group known as the Jews (Judaism) and then eventually leave it; this would make that person a "former Jew" just like a full-fledged ethnic Jew that dropped out of an Orthodox yeshiva and became an atheist. It's a tricky category for sure, but given that we have (non-disputed categories) for many other religions (again, see Category:People by former religion) it makes no sense whatsoever to single this one out for deletion (again). --WassermannNYC 03:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, it's both. There are people who are Jews by ethnicity only - they do not practice Judaism. But people who practice Judaism are called Jews, too, even if they are not Jews by ethnicity. Yeah, it can be confusing, but that's just the way things are. Jinxmchue 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have to lean towards keeping this considering the other categories of the same type for other religions. I think that people will understand that "Jews" in this sense refers to the religion. It's pretty ridiculous to wonder if people will think it refers to people who've changed their ethnicity. Jinxmchue 04:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because being Jewish means being part of both an ethnicity and a religion, unlike for Christians and Muslims for example who are ONLY part of a religion. See the Who is a Jew? article as well as the Jew and Judaism articles to understand this subject. And there are grades to this according to Judaism: Thus according to Jewish law a Jew who renounces Judaism and practices another religion is still ethnically a Jew albeit one who is now part of a different reeligion. Or, a Jew who is simply ignorant of Judaism and lapses into non-belief is not classsed as a "former" Jew, but is considered to be a full-fledged Jew, albeit an ignorant one, according to Judaism. This category cannot take the place of the reality of what Judaism and Jewish law teach and no-one has the right to propose categories that do not reflect what Judaism itself teaches about Jews and Judaism. If anything, this category should be divided into either Category:Jewish apostates or Category:Jews who rejected Judaism. IZAK 05:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely delete this very contentious, misleading and uninformative category.--Smerus 06:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- so should all of the other categories at Category:People by former religion be deleted as well? --WassermannNYC 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and salt recreation of inflammatory, subjective, undefined category. Doczilla 07:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- so should all of the other categories at Category:People by former religion be deleted as well? --WassermannNYC 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of the ethnic part of being Jewish per Izak, although a rename to Category:Jewish apostates would be reasonable as well. Daniel^C/_T 10:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to Category:Jewish apostates per Daniel or to Category:People who have renounced Judaism per ZayZayEM; the current name is misleading, and the status of JUdaism as both an ethnicity and a religion makes this a clear case for making an exception to the convention of Category:People by former religion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight change: oppose Category:Jewish apostates per Youngamerican as a term which (rightly or wrongly) wil often be seen as loaded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:People who have renounced Judaism. To me, the category as it stands is akin to Category: Former Welshmen. As far as a new name, I prefer the "renounced" version over the "apostate" version, as the word is a bit loaded and makes a bit of a pov value judgement regarding the topic. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Former Welshmen? We have lots of them, such as Michael Heseltine and Michael Howard. But I agree that apostate is a loaded term, better avoided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per most of the reasoning to delete above (i.e. IZAK). "Former Jew" is in itself a POV term almost impossible to exactly define. For instance, this category was added to Bobby Fischer, an ethnic Jew who was never raised in Judaism and denies being Jewish, and Karl Marx, an ethnic Jew who was baptized into the Lutheran religion at birth. In the ethnic sense, they are still Jews, in the religious sense, they never practiced Judaism so you can not really call them "Former Jews" in any sense. Mad Jack 21:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As noted above, someone born Jewish always remains ethnically Jewish. There are plenty of people who have converted but asserted that they were still Jewish, such as Hugh Montefiore (who became a bishop).--Runcorn 21:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Actually, a question for those in favor of deleting this category. Do you also, then, support deleting the categories of this type for other religions? If not, why not? I mean, considering the other categories listed, do you really think someone will easily mistake this as meaning people who are formerly ethnic Jews (which doesn't even make any sense)? Jinxmchue 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jinxmchue -- this is the exact point that I am trying to make here, but of course this critical point is blatantly ignored by those with an agenda as they are blinded by their POV. If this category is deleted then ALL of the other sub-categories at Category:People by former religion should be deleted as well. --WassermannNYC 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. See also deletion of the list of former gays: [[4]], let's treat people equally No former Gays, then no former Jews, no former white people, no former latinos, no people formerly born in 1950; each of which seems to be an impossibility any way. Carlossuarez46 02:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jews are an ethnicity. What’s next, former Kapampangans? —Lagalag 14:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- what about Judaism (a religion) and those that formerly adhered to it? --WassermannNYC 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:People who have renounced Judaism per ZayZayEM. Generally, I prefer subcats to be consistent, but this is a case where an exception seems moderately well justified. Alternatively (second choice), Keep, as "Jew" refers to both a religion and an ethnicity, and since you can't be a "former ethnic", there is no ambiguity in this case. And in either case, people who don't properly belong in the category should simply be removed from it, as with any other case of improper categorization. DO NOT DELETE UNLESS all the sibling categories are also deleted; it's silly to not categorize former members of only one religion simply because there is an ethnicity of the same name. (And note: not all Jews are Jewish in the first place, since people do convert to Judiasm, e.g. the Khazars. It may sound like a paradox, but it's a simple fact of life.) Xtifr _tälk 21:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Xtifr has it right - you can't be a "former ethnic". Former converts to Judaism is unlikely to be a viable category.--Brownlee 22:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I would go with something along the lines of, Category:People who have renounced Judaism. Obviously, this kind of category exists on Wikipedia for all other religions, so it should exist for Judaism too. It just needs a name that is more accurate. --Metzenberg 20:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename to less ambiguous title Category:Jews who have renounced Judaism. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People who have renounced Judaism and agree with Xtifr's rationale. Olessi 03:11, 2 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 08:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Horror films by decade ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Category:1910s horror films
• Category:1920s horror films
• Category:1930s horror films
• Category:1940s horror films
• Category:1950s horror films
• Category:1960s horror films
• Category:1970s horror films
• Category:1980s horror films
• Category:1990s horror films
• Category:2000s horror films

Over categorisation. Nominating all individual "decade" categories within this category. No other genre is listed by decade. ZayZayEM 02:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it cleans out the Category:Horror films quite a bit. Also, we do have Category:Romantic comedy films by decades as well.Andrzejbanas 03:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrzejbanas; it's always good to create sub-categories (or even sub-sub-categories) to deal with massively large & unwieldy ones. --WassermannNYC 03:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNo other genre is listed by decade.-Maybe they should be.Aatomic1 07:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the number of articles involved, I'd hate to have them all in the main Category:Horror films, which already has 1300 entries. -- Black Falcon 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep per discussion above. This sounds like a useful way of sub-catting a large category. There may be a better way of sub-categorising, but none appears to have been proposed so far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Don't create categories just to divide up large ones. Some categories should be large. Recury 13:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As ironically indicated in a keep comment above, no other film genre is divided by decade. My guess is there's a good reason for this, though. namely that films and other art works are already divided by year/decade/century and genres are kept as a seperate subcategorization scheme to avoid unnecessary duplication of categories. The only way I might support this category is if it were part of an organized, well thought out larger scheme to subdivide Category:Films by year into genre types. But even there I'm not sure such a scheme is needed. Dugwiki 16:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per discussion above. Category:Films by year does not help because we cannot intersect categories (yet?).--DorisHノート 17:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lugnuts 11:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What would be the point of having "Category:Horror films" when you could place every film in its respective "decade category", but you're not supposed to put articles in a category and its subcategories? Helltopay27 18:31, 31 March 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.

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. No objection to a list, but one is apparently already present. >Radiant< 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Richard Dawkins Award winners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, another "person by award". — coelacan — 02:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--ZayZayEM 03:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify a useful list, but only four recipients for an annual award seems ill justified to fit the need for categorisation. Rgds, - Trident13 12:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no need to listify because all four articles are already listed at Richard Dawkins Award. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous CFD as the most prestigious award given to notable atheists. "Person by award" does not automatically mean that the category should be deleted. Otto4711 12:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BrownHairedGirl. Recury 13:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Most of these people win many awards anyway. The category, like other award categories, will contribute to category clutter. It is generally better to use lists for these kinds of awards. Dr. Submillimeter 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:OC#Award winners. My first feeling was keep, but in rereading the cited section, I have trouble considering the Richard Dawkins Award as one of the most internationally well-known awards. ~ BigrTex 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per my comments in the previous discussion. Dugwiki 16:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OCAT#Award_winners. Doczilla 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Otto4711. Choalbaton 21:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify/Delete—I argued keep/rename at the last CfD, but I find Dr. Submillimeter's arguments more persuasive this time around. Xtifr _tälk 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I really don't think you are supposed to do that. If you are, then we should be doing that with all categories, and then it would defeat the purpose in the long run. Do we put every cat in Category:Films? Course not! Andrzejbanas 02:21, 1 April 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 08:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Compilation Albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only content is userspace material, and it's not clear if this was ever meant for a serious purpose; still has leftover interwikis from copying Category:Flash cartoons. Personal mixtapes aside, actual "fictional" compilation albums don't seem plentiful. Unint 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it's demonstrated by the end of the CFD that there's a need for the category. Otto4711 01:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto4711 --ZayZayEM 03:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 07:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --DorisHノート 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lakers 01:30, 31 March 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 08:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fan 3 songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

non-notable songs by non-notable band. Nardman1 00:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while not empty, due to the special provisions of Category:Songs by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The notability of the band and its songs should not be raised at Categories for discussion. You can prove notability by adding sources (if they exist), request that sources be provided from the articles' authors, propose the articles for deletion, or nominate them for deletion. -- Black Falcon 07:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Although I know nothing about the artist aside from what is written at Fan 3, the article does state that the artist has performed music for TV and movie soundtracks. This demonstrates that articles on Fan 3 and her music should be kept in Wikipedia. This category is clearly needed for articles on her music, so it should be kept as well. Dr. Submillimeter 09:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Also note that Nardman1 has nominated Fan 3 for deletion. (The article easily asserted the notability of the subject, so I voted to keep the article.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems plenty notable, and while the song articles exist, the category must also.--Mike Selinker 14:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability has nothing to do with Category:Songs by artist. If the song articles exist, then the appropriate song-by-artist category must exist. Of course, if the articles are deleted and the category thereby becomes empty, then speedy delete the empty category. Dugwiki 16:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep above. Lakers 01:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while populated. Delete once the singles are all deleted. Agathoclea 06:38, 31 March 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.