Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 12

< February 11	February 13 >

February 12

Category:Hurricanes in Hawaii

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. Syrthiss 14:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is obsolete and misnamed; Category:Hawaii hurricanes is the correct category. — jdorje (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I didn't think you would make that right then and there! That's why I made it. Huge yes for delete. Hurricanehink 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Potentially speedy. Pavel Vozenilek 23:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Jewish liberals

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. Syrthiss 14:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category is filled full of people who either aren't Jewish or aren't liberals. This category looks like someone making a target list. It needs to be stopped. James Howard (talk/web) 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no clear criteria for the category, which has included such "liberals" as Henry Kissinger (since removed), Elliott Abrams, and Michael Chertoff. -Will Beback 22:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. -James Howard (talk/web) 23:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Bkwillwm 00:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This reeks of really poor taste. --waffle iron 00:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I am in the process of making the list. I feel that it is very informative and I plan to make a list of Christian Conservatives, etc. Elliott Abrams is a "neoconservative" which is generally agreed to be liberal ideology therefore they were listed. Just because someone is listed as a republican it doesnt mean they actually are. (DINO) Henry Kissinger is generally regarded to be a liberal considering he is on the council on foreign relations, trilateral commission, and supports NAFTA and many other liberal doctrines. He writes extensively about this and Chertoff heads and supports many neocon positions. Neocon is not conservative at all its just means liberal with a conservative name to confuse people. Also its substantiated that many founders of the neocon movement where marxists as you can read their profiles in the list of American communists.

I put some people on the list that are in the moderate file that I plan to go over later but I listed them for organizational purposes. I am browsing through huge lists of people and I dont want to forget certain people so I labeled them. When I am all finished I plan to go back and get a objective critical reveiw on if everyone is properly listed. It can also be discussed on the talk page.

JJstroker 00:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can see no reason to keep. If this is really who you mean to include on your list, I suggest that at a minimum you would seek to rename the category to Category:Jewish neo-liberal, and take a long read of the article on liberalism to understand what most of the world (America and Europe included) understands by the word "liberal" as distinct from "neo-liberal". But, bearing in mind that very few of the people on your list are making it an active part of their political life's work to argue how better America would be if it were more Jewish (in contrast to the "Christian conservatives" you compare), why would this be a useful category for Wikipedia to have? Why should it exist, as opposed to categorising the individuals as Jews and as neo-Liberals separately? I can see no purpose for this categorisation. -- Jheald 01:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - liberal is only synonymous with 'left' or 'vaguely left-leaning' in the US. Its a POV term. This category doesn't appear to be very well defined or applied: Emma Goldman was an anarchist, not a liberal. AnAn 02:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless this category will be accepted for everyone, delete it. 69.218.181.192 03:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of it is OR or very strange categorization choices at least. Most of the people included — Henry Kissinger, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and Diane Feinstein, put into the same category? — have nothing politically in common. --Fastfission 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jheald-I wouldn't put neo liberal because it is the same exact thing as "neo" conservative. The article for neoliberalism even places neoconservatism as a synonym. I feel that it is not necessary. I fully intend to write several more articles such as Christian Democrats, Jews-Conservatives etc. I feel that it is interesting to show information that most people would never even think of. Labeling someone liberal and conservative is very vague. It’s informative to see what type of people support each ideology and how the reader can make a correlation between all of the groups.

AnnaAniston- Emma Goldman was an anarchist-communist which is on the left of the political spectrum.

Henry Kissinger is a member of the trilateral commission as is Diane Feinstein (A commission dominated by leftists and neo conservatives) That is one thing they have in common. There is not one “traditional conservative” from the “old right” on this commission or in the neo conservative movement; not one. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were communists; which certainly applies to the left. I don’t see the problem. I feel that including this list is very insightful and can really contribute to wikipedia by showing information people would never even comprehend.

Thank you for your support.

JJstroker 07:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty clear that your standard for what is a "liberal" is highly idiosyncratic and based entirely on your own judgments of political similiarity rather than something like common attribution (what other people call them) or self-described political identity. Communists, anarchists, neo-conservative Nixon cabinet members, French feminist theorists, and California Democrats are not united in the slightest under any political banner that I can invision. This is clearly a category error, one brought on by bad methodology and original research. --Fastfission 00:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Seems like another in the long tradition of Jewish conspiracy theories. Vague definitions of "liberal" and "Jewish," including many people with some Jewish ancestry who do not actually identify as Jewish. This list needs to go, soon. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

Strong Delete per above. John Reid 08:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete: The category is redundant at best, an NPOV violation at worst, and incoherent in-between. But I would like to see Category:Illiterate Alabamans :-) (Sorry, that just made me glad I didn't vote yesterday after all.) Johndodd 04:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for slightly different reasons. I agree this is likely a category with an agenda (and probably a loathsome one, but let's Wikipedia:Assume good faith). But rather than arguing about that, I'd delete it as being a meaningless category. Everyone has a religious affiliation (or lack thereof); virtually everyone has a political philosophy. How is it meaningful to intersect two of them and create a category on that basis? I might (might) vote to keep a narrower category, even if provocative, if it had a meaningfully narrow scope (for example including people on the basis of being leaders in some way, rather than just by being of a certain religion and philosophy). I agree with User:JJstroker (though I am ashamed to do so, given some of the other language used by same) that his (admittedly laughable) miscategorization of people is not, in itself, sufficient reason to delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inonit (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or, at least, delete the bulk of the members of the category; but the label "liberal" should only be applied if the person applied it to themseves. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a conspiracy theory when it is all factual information? I merely posted people who identify as liberal or who support unquestionable liberal ideology.

John Reid, that was a very poor example and I fail to see the relevance of your statement. The article in question is entirely different from your examples.

When someone is labeled "Democrat", "Republican", "Conservative" or "Liberal" it is very vague. Many people who are registered with the republican party are in fact liberals and vice versa. (DINO) (RINO) etc. I feel that it’s beneficial to show liberal and conservative ideology as a whole and what groups support it. I feel that it’s very insightful. I fully intended to do a list of Republican liberals, Christian liberals, etc. Also its pleasant for our Jewish readers to officially see people they identify with support this or that.

JPGordon, I seek confirmation on every person that I list. I do not add moderates. I will only add people who are officially listed as democrat or overwhelmingly support liberal ideology. I don’t see a reason for the article to be deleted considering that it is factual insightful information.

JJstroker 22:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the word liberal is used in strict US sense, I guess, and could be misleading for the rest of the world. This kind of information should belong into well maintained list with more details and context. Pavel Vozenilek 23:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' liberal is a vague, unstable, and often misused term. older ≠ wiser 23:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It's clear from JJstroker's own words that "Liberal" is a vague label, so it follows that categorization on that label is of no encyclopedic value. Carlossuarez46 00:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel, The article is for liberal Americans. I should have added that info. I want to organize the article more and put a section such as "Neocon liberal" or something of that nature but everyone is jumping on me before i can finish. I feel that the rest of you are tend to misinterpret what I am writing. I said before that I am only putting confirmed liberals who clearly support a liberal ideology. The detailed organization of Liberals, Conservatives, Jewish liberals, neoliberals etc provides information which is beneficial to wikipedia as a whole. Its nice to see what kind of sizeable voting block supports each ideology etc. I do not see a reason for the article to be deleted.

68.126.232.191 00:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Goldstein, the Rosenbergs, Kissinger, and Diane Feinstein do not constitute a voting bloc. They have nothing politically in common and would not support the same policies in anything but the most speculative and naive imagination. I would normally say that you were using "liberal" in the way that someone on the extreme right would (completely obscuring all political differences in anyone who disagreed with you), except for the fact that you've even put conservatives in that category! I don't have the slightest idea what motivates you, but I think you are seriously confused about our policy on original research (see WP:NOR) and the methodology of Wikipedia article categorization. --Fastfission 00:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This can only lead to no good. linas 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And anarchists aren't liberals. Liberalism is far to the right. Sarge Baldy 02:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a highly misleading oversimplification. There are many forms of liberalism, which are so varied that it would be better if people stopped using the word in contemporary contexts, but the primary modern meaning is left of centre. Merchbow 04:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Goldstein is a radical feminist activist (You dont see feminists voting republican). The communist party USA credit themselves with starting the civil rights movement along with feminism and all of those liberal movements. The purpose of feminism is to undermine conservative values. (This is admitted by many feminists not just my opinion) The Rosenbergs where both communists punished for their activities. Secondly Diane Feinstein and Kissinger both are on the coucil on foreign relations and the trilateral commission. Kissinger supports many liberal policies for the elite most people do not consider him a traditional conservative. Although I am just categorizing the list right now and I tend to review the people when I am done. I really dont want to break the NPOV policy. You put my voting block statement out of context most of the people listed are just your regular democrats and activists in the democratic party. I didnt put conservatives I put "neo conservatives" which is agreed on wikipedia to be a liberal ideology. You wont see me putting Pat Buchanan on the list anytime soon. Also I refuse to put Jewish liberals who are (Democrats in name only) because that would contradict the policy that I am following. This list categorizes the democratic party very well. We all know if someone is a democrat. It would make a distinction between Jewish liberals, Black liberals, non Jewish liberals etc. There is more that meets the eye. This list will not only organize Jewish liberals but three other lists of liberals at the same time. I feel that this will be very beneficial for wikipedia and it will really enrich the content quality.

Regards,

JJstroker 05:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Established precedent opposes categorizing people by their political ideology; I see no convincing reason to change that. This looks suspiciously more like a Republican enemies list than a genuinely useful classification of people. Frex, it's really reaching to classify Isaac Asimov, Kathy Acker or Whoopi Goldberg in what's essentially a political grouping. It also strains credulity to classify Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz, Elliott Abrams, Michael Chertoff or Paul Wolfowitz as liberals in any meaningful sense of the word. "Liberal" does not mean "anything remotely left whatsoever", so self-declared anarchists like Emma Goldman don't belong. And I'm not too clear on why what's otherwise an exclusively American-specific grouping includes Hélène Cixous, either. Delete. Bearcat 09:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Asimov was a progressive liberal as it's mention on his page while Kathy Acker was a radical feminist, and Whoopi Goldberg frequently attends democratic fundraisers and receives awards such as Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and is anti abortion etc. The rest of the people you mentioned are "neo conservatives" while Paul Wolfowitz is officially a democrat who is in the Bush admin. These individuals are surely not republicans if you are to apply conservative philosophy which in this case we are. Emma Goldman was a anarchist-communists which is even stated on her page. People need to be notified that these neocons are not republicans nor do they follow conservative ideology; but liberal ideology. As long as it's factualy accurate and has encyclopedic value I dont see a problem. We can work to a suitable alternative such as captions that we can all write instead of deleting the category. I fully intend to write a list of conservative liberals, Democratic conservatives etc. You can even help me if you'd like.

JJstroker 10:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism and communism are not "liberal" ideologies in any sense of the word, and neoconservatism is not a "liberal" ideology in the sense that you're using it. Isaac Asimov was a science fiction writer, not a politician. Whoopi Goldberg is an actress, not a politician. And on, and so forth. Bearcat 19:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per above. Postdlf 18:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category such as Irish Catholic Democrats might be more acceptable due to the larger involvement that Irish-Americans have in the Democratic party. 69.218.181.192 18:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only anarchist I put on the list was Emma Goldman who was an anarchist-communist. Most of the anarchists are confirmed socialists. Do Isaac Asimov and Whoopi Goldberg not support liberal ideology? The list is not reserved to politicians only but Jewish liberals of influence in general. Also this not only categorizes Jews in the democratic party but also organizes non Jewish liberals at the same time. I feel that its beneficial because its organizing several groups at once. Instead of having someone labeled "Democrat" it displays the makeup of the democratic party as a whole. I feel that its very informative and I fully intend to do the same thing for the republican party (Which I am in the process of doing with this list)

JJstroker 20:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communism is not liberalism. Socialism is not liberalism. Anarchism is not liberalism. What part of this are you having trouble grokking? Bearcat 20:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, Will Beback et al. No clear criteria for inclusion, no useful purpose for category. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Poor reasons by JJstroker. adnghiem501 06:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its all factual information I dont see the reason to delete. Its very informative. I would be happy to write a list of Christian neo liberals if you would all feel more comfortable. As long as it has value I dont have see the problem.

JJstroker 08:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-we shouldn't be making lists of people by political beliefs. --agr 13:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong delete In regards to agr, there are several categories on political beliefs albeit mostly for politicians (an example being "Category:Pro-choice politicians"). However, I do strongly agree with deletion. Any category based on race/religion + political beliefs suggests to me to be motivated by racism (which blantantly violates NPOV policy). Add onto that that many of the entries into the category are questionable as to being Jewish and liberal, and I think this category is ridiculous. -VetteDude 19:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I'm less concerned about the self-proclaimed positions of politicians (at least there is also a Category:Pro-life politicians), I think there is still a Wikipedia policy issue here. Do we allow such categories for every issue of the day: death penalty, gay marriage, Iraq war, flat tax, Israel/Palestine, oil drilling in ANWR, single-payer health insurance, equal access to the Internet, etc.? What constitute support and opposition ("She once voted for a budget bill that included ANWR drilling.")? What about nuanced positions (civil union vs. gay marriage)? The category list for politicians could become a thicket of issue entries. And who is going to verify all these categorizations? --agr 23:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For all the reasons stated above. What's a liberal? American liberal? Liberals in some countries refer to what would be conservatives in America. The creator of the category is just trying to inflame people. His edits of pages border on vandalism. Checking his contributions, he has made almost 2000, and most involve labeling someone as Jewish, or are in some way involved with labeling someone by ethnicity, and never with any citation or proof. Not only should this category be deleted, JJstroker should be banned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.254.165.193 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The only reason I have been labeling people as Jewish is because I have been working on this Jewish american liberal article. I did it for organizational purposes. Plus it is factual confirmed information I dont just call random people Jewish. Secondly I think this list would have been taking more seriously If I started off with the Christian liberals first. The article shouldnt be deleted I feel that you all are trying to remain politically correct instead of showing insightful information.

JJstroker 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see why many users are voting to delete this category as a result? You're too frivolous to comment about liberals. What does this have to do with the encyclopedia? There is no such concern to have given for all consensus. Perhaps, your basis of the factual accuracy point-of-view opinions about the people as liberals are in conflict. Why don't you stop doing this stuff? We're totally disappointing your opinions, as you're not supposed to follow our policy rules. Anyway, you should cautiously be aware of what Wikipedia is not.... Change your mind. adnghiem501 05:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if you're so keen on informing us all, JJ, why weren't you simultaneously filling a category called Category:Jewish conservatives? (And don't even think of starting it - it would deserve deletion too). For all the reasons people have given, the present category is capricious, ill thought through, and unwanted, stinks of a nasty little agenda, and should go. -- Jheald 12:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Doesn't look like it's going to follow the categorization of the rest of Wikipedia and JJstroker, the fact that you have to argue why specific individuals belong or don't belong tells everyone that this is not a community-based categorization scheme, just your own opinions, i.e. original research. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jheald, I would be happy to add a category of Jewish conservatives. In fact I was planning to do it right after Jewish liberals. Its just I want to work at one article at a time. You have my vote to start the article I will even help you.

Ricky- I shouldnt have to argue why specific individuals belong or dont belong because people started asking me about random people that they didnt even take the time to read their profiles on why they are listed as liberals. Every single person I added is either listed as liberal or is officially in the democratic party or they clearly support liberal ideology. I do not add people that I personally think are liberal it has to be confirmed. This is not original research but verified factual insightful information.

JJstroker 07:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Y-DNA haplogroups to Category:Human Y-DNA haplogroups

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. Syrthiss 13:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other organisms have Y chromosomes, for which haplogroups can also be defined. It is useful to keep this category distinct for human haplogroups, used in the study of recent human genetic evolution and population migrations -- Jheald 18:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have already moved the category page content to the new category, and put in a category redirect macro. But I didn't realise it needed an admin's edit to get the NekoDemon to complete the process (suggest: more about the CFR process should be added to the template talk:Category redirect page to tell people about the CFR process rather than letting them assume they can do the rename themselves). -- Jheald 18:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:mtDNA haplogroups to Category:Human mtDNA haplogroups

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. Syrthiss 13:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other organisms have mitochondrial chromosomes, for which haplogroups can be defined. It is useful to keep this category distinct for human haplogroups, used in the study of recent human genetic evolution and population migrations. Jheald 18:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have already moved the category page content to the new category, and put in a category redirect macro. But I didn't realise it needed an admin's edit to get the NekoDemon to complete the process (suggest: more about the CFR process should be added to the template talk:Category redirect page to tell people about the CFR process rather than letting them assume they can do the rename themselves). -- Jheald 18:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Environmental movements

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. Syrthiss 13:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Environmentalism. There's already a lot of overlap between the two categories, and semantically, there's a lot of overlap between the two concepts, if not 100% overlap, depending on who you ask. I don't think it's useful to try to distinuish different kinds of pro-environment activities using these two terms. Using or perhaps expanding the existing subcategory structure would be more useful. -- Beland 18:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. The distinction isn't clear to me. CalJW 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

American sportspeople

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 all. Syrthiss 13:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the subcategories of American sportspeople use the term athletes, which is confusing to majority of people who are not American (as they are likely to assume it includes only practioners of what Americans call track and field), and not in line with the way things are done here. Also they do not match category:American sportspeople.

Category:African American athletes rename Category:African American sportspeople
Category:Asian American athletes rename Category:Asian American sportspeople
Category:Athletes of Hawaii rename Category:Sportspeople of Hawaii
Category:Jewish American athletes rename Category:Jewish American sportspeople
Category:Native American athletes and sportspeople rename Category:Native American sportspeople

Rename all Osomec 15:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is an area of significant confusion, as Americans don't use the word "athlete" to mean "track star."--Mike Selinker 20:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per nom. -- Jheald 20:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Rename as per nom. CalJW 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT how did mine and another use's votes get removed from here??? again i vote to
Rename all but one. propose Category:Hawaii sportspeople as alternative Mayumashu 02:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, including Mayumashu's alternate, Category:Hawaii sportspeople. - TexasAndroid 12:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT The term "sportsman" in the U.S. refers to hunters. The term "sportsperson" means nothing in the U.S. and I'm not sure I've heard the word used before; it sounds like a neologism. I think "sports people," two words, is best. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
- Comment. I'm from the US, and I certainly know what sportsperson means. Sports Illustrated publishes an annual Sportsperson of the Year, and as far as I know, it's never been a hunter.--Mike Selinker 12:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 13:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Road signs in Ireland

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. Syrthiss 13:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was marked for speedy deletion as empty - it contains nothing but images. To my mind this does not make it eligable for speedy deletion, so I am listing it here. Thryduulf 15:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is an article on this topic at Road signs in the Republic of Ireland, but it does not seem to warrant a separate category. RayGates 22:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (I was going to nominate it here today. :) No potential for more than 1 article.

Originally both this category and its parent contained the Road signs in the Republic of Ireland article. I removed the article since it made no sense in category of its own and speedied the category (rejected).

I do not understand how the pictures got inside category there but they all come from the mentioned article, so no fear of loss. Pavel Vozenilek 23:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Canada Campaign (American Revolution)

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. Syrthiss 13:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - This Category is not required, each article has a reference to the "Canada Campaign" in the "Battle Box" and all the battles are noted at List of conflicts in Canada and Category:Conflicts in Canada. In addition, the +cat name is in appropriate and the sentence at the top describing the Category "Provence of Canada"...What is this? The creator of the +cat recently created a similiar +cat called Category:Battles of the War of 1812 (Northern Theaters), which was deleted see discussion here: Discussion. ~~Please note that the individual User:Mike McGregor (Can) that created this category is the founder and sole member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force~~SirIsaacBrock 13:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 17:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Kirill Lok s hin 17:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WikiProject Military history, the campaign is already adequately organized with Template:Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Canada. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 18:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category isn't needed since its purpose is already adequately served by the existing category and template system...and even if we did decide to take this route instead, the category is improperly named. Bearcat 09:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Number sequences to Category:Integer sequences

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. Syrthiss 13:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant and not clearly defined. Samohyl Jan 09:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. I've been planning on doing this for a long, long time. linas 01:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Box sets to Category:Box set albums

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 and keep redirect on it. Syrthiss 13:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy. The latter has been established for far longer and has far more entries. --Unint 06:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom. Osomec 15:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'd favour keeping a {{categoryredirect}} on Category:Box sets, though, since it's plausible enough that it could be recreated in error by someone who doesn't realize that Category:Box set albums is the way the category happens to be phrased. Bearcat 09:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Album series to Category:Compilation album series

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. Syrthiss 13:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy. The description on Category:Album series already says that it is primarily for 'compilation albums sung by many different artists' -- which is exactly what Category:Compilation album series is for. In fact, everything currently in the former category fits perfectly in the latter. Also, I can't really think of any album series that aren't compilation album series, unless you want to give a separate category to albums with titles like Greatest Hits, Volume II or Peter Gabriel (III). --Unint 06:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The second name is clearer. CalJW 22:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Television Programs

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. Syrthiss 13:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and the template now puts everything in Category:Television program logos. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Empty. Bhoeble 13:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Acadians to Category:Acadian people

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. Syrthiss 13:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency with other 'people' categories, this should this be at Category:Acadian people. For example, we don't have categories like Category:Quebecers, Category:Germans, Category:Basques, etc. --Saforrest 04:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Move, but keep a {{categoryredirect}} on Category:Acadians for a while. Bearcat 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ethnicity categories in this form are common Category:Fooians, witness Category:Cajuns, Category:Afro-Brazilians Category:Jews, Category:Crimean Tatars, and so on. - choster 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per User:Choster's observations Mayumashu 05:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:RSS evangelist

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. Syrthiss 13:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was going to nominate this as a speedy rename due to the singular/plural problem, but then I realized that it seems to fall into that gray area known as "small without potential for growth". I guess it just seems like overkill to me. Aaron 03:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nom. --Quasipalm 03:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also:

--Quasipalm 03:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated Category:Apple evangelist and Category:Microsoft evangelist as speedy renames to their plural equivalents, since I felt they had at least a tiny bit of hope of expansion, but I have to admit I'm borderline on those as well. If someone else nominates them for deletion, I'll vote to support. --Aaron 03:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:RSS advocates. No need for hopes of future growth for now, it has three articles. --Vizcarra 04:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (1) It is hard to evaluate extent how much someone is important as proponent of early technology (and it is not task of WP). (2) Being such proponent is hardly primary or secondary characteristic of a person. (3) I can see such virtually useless categories mushroom on WP if this gets is allowed. (4) Most important objection: the term "evangelist" is pure marketing jargon (ala misuse of hyper/super/mega/etc). I strongly oppose to adapting such sneaky terms. Pavel Vozenilek 12:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Pavel said--his points 1, 2, and 3 also apply to "RSS advocates."betsythedevine 14:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Betsy Devine and I (who created the category under review) had a long argument with regards to the Dave Winer article and she recently has began a NPOV argument with regards to my changes to the Atom article. --Ben Houston 17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, I'm curious what insinuations you'd like to make about the motives of others who voted to delete this category--including now yourself. I do sometimes make edits in the webfeed/RSS/Atom space where you have been working. I take an interest in this space because I used to work for Feedster, a webfeed search engine that began supporting Atom as well as RSS almost as soon as Atom was released. I invite the curious to compare my contributions to Wikipedia with those made by Bhouston and decide for themselves if my occasional efforts to maintain neutrality in a contentious space result from a vengeful pursuit of Bhouston personally. betsythedevine 13:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It probably isn't worth keeping. I created the main technical evangelist category and got carried away. --Ben Houston 17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category: Scoto-Norman Clans

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 deleted by BD2412, speedy rename. Syrthiss 13:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to be an article? Lots of text, no articles. JonHarder 01:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep. I've tried to clean up what is there a bit, by moving the text to its own article, and populating the category with some of the clans which could be described as Scoto-Norman. IMO, the category could have value, if Wikipedia:WikiProject Clans of Scotland want it.

But in any case while we're considering, it should be given a Speedy Rename to Category:Scoto-Norman clans (small c) -- Jheald 20:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category: Politicians by nationality

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. Syrthiss 13:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates Politicians by country. JonHarder 00:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Shouldn't the correct name be Category:Politicians by nationality rather than by country? --Vizcarra 03:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By country is proper sorting. Country is much better defined than nationality for border cases. Pavel Vozenilek 12:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JonHarder. RayGates 22:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although both names are ambiguous by country seems more right. Carlossuarez46 00:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category: People known in connection with philosophy

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 --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually unused; duplicates Philosophers. JonHarder 00:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 12:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Empty. Bhoeble 13:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could the category name be more awkwardly worded? --Ben Houston 14:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category: Norwegian writers/Novelists

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. Syrthiss 13:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates Norwegian novelists. JonHarder 00:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the history, I suspect this was created in error by someone who thought they were creating an article on Eystein Eggen but just misunderstood proper Wikipedia coding format. Probably doesn't need to be CFD'd; looks speedyable to me. Bearcat 05:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category: Norwegian literature/Writers

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. Syrthiss 13:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates Norwegian writers. JonHarder 00:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the history, I suspect this was created in error by someone who thought they were creating an article on Eystein Eggen but just misunderstood proper Wikipedia coding format. Probably doesn't need to be CFD'd; looks speedyable to me. Bearcat 05:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.