Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 13 April 15 >

April 14[edit]

Category:Medium (TV series)[edit]

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 both. >Radiant< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Medium to Category:Medium (TV series)
  • Merge, Different categories for the same thing. Raasta123 21:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Doczilla 23:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Category:Medium and Category:Medium (TV series) In fact, when I looked at these categories, neither appears to be a necessary eponymous category for the TV series. Combined they have only four items, including the main article and the subcategory Category:Medium (TV Series) episodes (which already appears in Category:Episodes by television series), an "images" subcategory and an article called Broadcasters of Medium which seems a likely candidate for article deletion (unreferenced list of networks which air the show). So as far as I can tell both these categories are entirely unnecessary. Delete as per similar categories with limited entries that have popped up for other eponymous TV series in recent months. Dugwiki 22:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Dugwiki. As with eponymous categories for people, eponymous categories for TV series should be reserved for those with a great deal of material that can't easily be interlinked. That isn't the case here so both categories can go. Otto4711 02:03, 18 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.

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment[edit]

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. Important backing policies include WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and guideline WP:OCAT. Oh and yes, anti-Christianity and so forth should be likewise put on CFD. >Radiant< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anti-Islam sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2006 December 27 § Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_27 § Category:Anti-Islam_sentiment_.282nd_nomination.29

Per WP:OC#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue: "...holding an opinion is not a defining characteristic, and should not be a criterion for categorization, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinion." "Anti-Islam sentiment" is by deifnition an opinion on Islam (negative in this case) and thus must be deleted as a clear example of overcategorization. Beit Or 20:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What would you propose as an alternate? Category:Anti-Islam? Given the existence of roughly equivalent categories (and in particular the one for antisemitism) I don't see how this type of an argument is valid. (→Netscott) 21:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anti-Protestantism was more likely created in response to Category:Anti-Catholicism. They both predate this category as far as I can tell.--T. Anthony 03:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The assertion that "Anti-Islam Sentiment" is somehow equivalent to "Antisemitism" is profoundly incorrect. As usual, Sefringle nailed it. Anti-semitism is a persecution that applies to Jews as a race. The prejudice expressed by antisemitism is an attack on people (Jews) based on their race. Race is a characteristic that a person has absolutely no control over. On the other hand, Islam is a religion; a belief system. If someone disagrees with Islam, then they are disagreeing with ideas that a person chooses- this is wholly different than a discriminatory prejudice against people themselves based on their race. It's my opinion that the users above made this comparison error inadvertently, and it should be promptly forgiven as an honest mistake. --ProtectWomen 06:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree it's profoundly incorrect and possibly even a bit suspect. However comparing this to Category:Anti-Protestantism, or even Category:American anti-Communist propaganda films, seems potentially valid to me.--T. Anthony 03:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same reasons I used at the last CFD. --Folantin 13:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ProtectWomen. Casperonline 20:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 02:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Or alternatively delete Category:Anti-Protestantism, Category:Anti-Catholicism, etc. Still I think there's some valid historical interest in these things.--T. Anthony 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and suggest that T. Anthony nominates the other 2 categories he refers to. Oliver Han 10:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm kind of on the fence, but I go with keeping the three more than removing the three. If it seems like removing all three is really desirable I might change my mind, but if you want those two nominated you can do it.--T. Anthony 15:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, well put. Arrow740 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Proabivouac 10:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Itaqallah.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category oversimplifies complex issues and is rather inflammatory. Haddiscoe 12:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Itaqallah.--Caranorn 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is the 3rd nomination in 4 months. I think it is only fair to list all of the similar categories as a block, so we either delete them all or none of them. I have started Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 18#Anti-Christian and related. We can add Anti-Judaism, Anti-Mormonism, and other categories as well if we seriously want to consider deleting them as a block. But this individual category has been nominated twice before, and many of the same arguments remain. Why delete just the Anti-Islam category, when we still have Anti-Christianity and Anti-Judaism?-Andrew c 01:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you should nominate them for deletion as well.--Sefringle 03:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Delete wouldn't see something like this in normal encyclopedias. Sleep On It 04:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nomination suffers from a clear logical flaw. According to policy, opinions are not safe bases for categorisation; yet this is not a category based on opinion, but on sentiment. It thus fits in with other categories relevant to discrimination. cat:Critics of Islam deals with people who have ideological objections to the nature and structure of the religion; this cat deals with those who have, according to RS, a bias against the followers of that religion. Hornplease 20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but if and only if Anti-Christianity is deleted. If the others are not deleted (and it appears they have less consensus), this is an effective vote for keep. Cool Hand Luke 03:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep if a category exists, so should its anti-category. This is just a matter of fairness towards varying points of view. Hmains 03:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hmains inference that the main category is a "pro"-Islam category is a load of old cobblers. Jamie Mercer 14:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Itaqallah.--Kirby♥time 05:16, 20 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.

Category:List of Royal Military College of Canada people[edit]

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< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:List of Royal Military College of Canada people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Royal Military College of Canada people, convention of Category:People by university in Canada. -- Prove It (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename In Wikipedia parlance categories and lists are two different systems. Abberley2 20:01, 14 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.

Category:CCM Songs[edit]

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< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:CCM Songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Christian songs, or Rename to Category:Contemporary Christian songs. -- Prove It (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename seems like the best choice. It's definitely a distinct category, and if we delete it, someone is likely to recreate it using the same inappropriate and obscure abbreviation. Xtifr tälk 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Pastorwayne 15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. Jamie Mercer 14:37, 19 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.

Category:Films based on Marvel comics[edit]

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: don't rename. >Radiant< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films based on Marvel comics to Category:Films based on Marvel Comics
Nominator's Rationale: Speedy Rename, Proper name is "Marvel Comics". ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposed name is ungrammatical. One could make a case for Category:Films based on Marvel Comics comics, but it is probably better to leave it where it is. Abberley2 20:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, indeed, the films are based on lines of comics, not on the company. And "Marvel Comics comics" is just too awkward to bother with. Xtifr tälk 21:11, 19 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.

Category:Animation based on Marvel Comics[edit]

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: speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 19:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Animation based on Marvel Comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Empty. Crosses over with both Category:Television programs based on Marvel Comics and Category:Films based on Marvel comics. Duplicate of Category:Marvel Comics animation. ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — coelacan — 18:02, 14 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.

Category:Jewish figure skaters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Most of the debate boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS vs. non-defining intersection. The former is not a valid argument, and vote stacking is inappropriate. >Radiant< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish figure skaters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Overcategorization. Covered under Jewish sportspeople. No reason to have seperate category. Why seperate figure skaters by religion? (Edited to add: I know LGBT figure skaters exists as a category. However, due to the overwhelming stereotype of all figure skaters as gay, I think that category is useful to categorize the skaters who have actually come out of the closet. However, I have never seen a stereotype of all figure skaters as [insert religion here], so seperating by religion makes no sense. Should we categorize Michael Weiss under Methodist figure skaters?) Kolindigo 16:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Deletion of the category Jewish sportspeople was already considered -- and rejected. --Epeefleche 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are sports where ethnicity has been an important part of their history. For example Negro league baseball to baseball or the Philadelphia Sphas to basketball. However I'm unaware of any historical significance to Jews being excluded or segregated in skating so I'd go with delete in this case, but I'd oppose deleting everything in Category:Jewish sportspeople. (Not that I have much to say anymore)--T. Anthony 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any particular evidence that these skaters' notability is based on their religious views or ethnic background, rather than their accomplishments in sport.Dr.frog 21:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once again, a Jewish category is being singled out for deletion when there are many similar ones. I am not aware of any stereotype of skaters as being LGBT, but if there were, it is not Wikipedia's job to reinforce incorrect stereotypes so that category should be deleted first. Is anyone in the LGBT category notable for their sexual activities? --Runcorn 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Singled out for deletion? What are the other similiar ones? It's the only figure skaters by religion category. If you're not aware of stereotypes of skaters as being gay, I welcome you to google "figure skating" + "gay". As for someone being notable for their sexual orientation (not activities), Rudy Galindo is very open about his, going so far as to play himself on Will & Grace. Brian Orser coming out, as I recall, was huge. And I really resent the implication that I'm singling out a Jewish topic for deletion just because it's Jewish. Kolindigo 22:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Runcorn here, though I recognize the fact that Koldingo himself was not aware of this at the time of his suggesting that this category be deleted. A few of the editors in this discussion formerly tried to delete the categories "Jewish sportspeople," and/or "Jewish Fencers" in the past. Their efforts were rejected. And yet, they are trying to do the same here. Editors such as ProveIt and coelacan and Abberley2 were all involved, for example, in the recent failed attempt to have jewish fencers removed as a category. I personally think it is a waste of our time for them to try again here, category by category. But when I asked some of them to drop it for that reason, so as not to waste everyone's time going over yet again an issue that has essentially been addressed already, they refused. I trust, being an optimist, that this will be the last one of these. --Epeefleche 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)--22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)~User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] 02:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I strongly oppose deleting this.

1. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) Categorization of people (3.3 Heritage), which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish figure skaters" is clearly contemplated by Wiki policy. It says: Heritage

People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."

2. Nationality. Also, if the Jews are (as appears to be the case) a nation (and not just a religion), it would clearly not be appropriate to delete.

The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)."

The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)."

Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

3. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability."

To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category. These already exist for Black Jews and various types of Jewish athletes other than Jewish figure skaters ... see Category:Jewish sportspeople.

And, importantly, there are a number of Halls of Fame and lists and articles relating to Jewish athletes. "Jewish Sports Legends" is a book that one can find at [1]. The International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame Jewishsports.net bios can be found at [2]. Jews in Sports bios can be found at [3]. National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame bios can be found at [4]. Jews in the Olympics can be found at [5] and medalists can be found at [6]. The Baltimore Jewish Times runs articles on Jewish athletes: [7]. The Holocaust Museum runs articles on Jewish athletes in the Holocaust: [8] and [9]. "From the Ghetto To The Games: Jewish Athletes in Hungary" focuses on certain Jewish athletes [10]. It is mentions such as these that demonstrate the importance of this classification ... which is what Wiki policy focuses on. --Epeefleche 00:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per Epeefleche. --Shamir1 00:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For some reason, Jewish athletes bring out a level of interest not found when dealing with other famous Jews. So people may be interested in this category. -- Mwalcoff 02:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge any people who have not been categorized into the appropriate Jews by nationality category then delete. per nom; invalid intersection, no article has or could be written about Jewish figure skating. Carlossuarez46 03:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, your comment that "no article has or could be written about Jewish figure skating is not quite accurate. See, for example, "The Tribe goes to Torino: Sketches of Jewish Olympic-Bound Athletes," 2/16/06, "Jewish Life at the Olympics", "Results in for Jewish Figure Skaters", "Feisty Figure Skater Sasha Cohen Heads Off to the Olympics, Magen David in Tow," 1/25/02, and "Jewish Figure Skater Hopes to Ice Spot in '98 Olympic Games," 1/19/96. --Epeefleche 03:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the context of Wikipedia, that means no encyclopedic article could be written about the subject, not that the press might not occasionally publish human-interest articles about skaters focusing on their religion or ethnicity. Dr.frog 12:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Please link to a Wikipedia policy that says that in so many words.--Osidge 12:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I also disagree with Dr. frog on this. See the discussion above in my comment under "3. Notability," which clearly points out that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."--Epeefleche 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jews are an ethnic group.Bakaman 04:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. It should be noted that user Epeefleche is conducting a get out the vote canvas. Votes by Shamir1 and Mwalcoff appear to have been made after posts to their talk pages. In addition, the same comments have been posted to several category talk pages like Category talk:Israeli sportspeople. Vegaswikian 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least in my case it is not the first time, since I do care about the case. And the continued re-consideration of this issue should be on the nominators head, not on the person trying to alert people to the continued discussion in the area where otherwise the same people who discussed the issue last time may not know that it is happening again. Ansell 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The thing is it's unclear if "figure skaters by ethnicity" is done here, not even when it's a nationality. True there is Category:Welsh figure skaters, but that can be argued to be more about being a UK region. We don't have a Category:Karuk figure skaters even though Naomi Lang would count as one. (The Welsh category has only one name if you object to the analogy)--T. Anthony 06:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There may well be a Welsh figure skating championships, as there are Welsh championships in dozens of sports, but there is no Jewish figure skating championships. The constituent countries of the UK are essential subdivisions in sport as they compete separately in the great majority of sports on the same basis as fully independent nations. Oliver Han 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, there are the Maccabiah Games. --Epeefleche 18:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Epeefleche Mad Jack 06:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no Jewish style of figure skating, and figure skaters represent their countries, not their ethnic groups. Oliver Han 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Epeefleche; there is no possible reason to delete this and keep say the LGBT category.--Osidge 12:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are no new arguments in this case compared to previous nominations which were made in very similar topic areas. Since when do categories have to have stereotypes, or even relate to stereotypes to exist? That isn't an argument its a point of interest that some may notice but isn't intended for categories to exist. (except for the LGBT category being brought up as a total aside to this issue). Ansell 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Epeefleche, Osidge and Ansell.--Newport 22:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.--Urthogie 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a random intersection of religion/ethnicity and occupation. As per WP:OCAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference categories should only combine occupation and ethnicity in cases when the two have some sort of direct connection (ie someone for whom being Jewish directly influence their figure skating career). It seems highly doubtful that any such articles exist. Therefore delete as a random intersection. Note that in reply to some of the "keep" recommendation comments - 1) If the intent is to intersect figure skaters by nationality, note that "Jewish" is not a nationality. Category:Israeli figure skaters would be a related and proper by-nationality category. 2) The argument was that "other similar categories exist", which is a form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Such arguments only mean that those similar items should also probably be deleted, just as this one should be deleted. So if you see "Catholic figure skaters" or something similar, nominate it for deletion here so we can delete it too. 3) This is not an attack against ALL Jewish-occupational categories. Some are probably legitimate because the person's Jewish heritage directly impacts their particular career. I'm not convinced, though, that figure skating is among those occupations. Dugwiki 22:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Just off-hand I'd also probably favor deleting Category:LGBT figure skaters as well, since people were saying "well if that's ok so is this". I'm not sure either is ok. Dugwiki 22:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As is indicated in some of the articles e.g., those of Rubinstein and Shmerkin, anti-semitism played a role in the careers of some of the Jewish figure skaters. This was especially common in the former communist countries, and as you will note a number of these skaters finally emigrated from those countries. Though I should point out that notability does not, as you suggest, require that the fact that the person is Jewish impact their career, anymore than we are required to demonstrate that the fact that a person is from the U.S. or born on July 1 impacts their career -- but we still list those. Plus, see notability discussion and nationality discussion above, which respond to some of your other comments. --Epeefleche 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To reply, you are making a faulty analogy between "Skaters by ethnicity" and "Skaters by nationality". It is generally accepted that a person's nationality does directly affect their careers in almost all cases, but it is not generally accepted that a person's ethnicity or religion affects their careers in most cases. For figure skating, for example, your nationality directly impacts your figure skating career by directing the course of your training and competitions (Olympic skaters compete for their nations as an obvious example.) It is not nearly so clear that your religion or ethnicity, though, impacts your skating career at all. Thus "Skaters by nationality" is not a "random intersection" because the two traits are intertwined, but "Skaters by ethnicity" or "Skaters by religion" are generally going to be random intersections since the traits and the occupation have little to do with each other. Dugwiki 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, if you look at my initial comment you will see that I discuss how the Jews are in fact a nation. Second, I have no idea where your notions as to what is "generally accepted" come from. They certainly do not match my understanding. The impact on careers of athletes who were Jewish, precisely because they were Jewish, is well documented. I again suggest that you look at the bios of Louis Rubenstein and Michael Shmerkin as examples in the case of Jewish ice skaters. There are many examples of Jewish athletes behind the Iron Curtain facing difficulties in their careers because they were Jewish, as well as Jews in anti-semitic countries such as Nazi Europe facing the same and greater difficulties.--Epeefleche 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has anyone said that LGBT figure skaters WON'T be nominated? "JEWISH" is not a nation, Israeli is. Bulldog123 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renominated. I nominated it last time along with another deal I withdrew. I probably won't this time, but it can be done.--T. Anthony 05:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Contrary to the above statement by Bulldog, The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)." (emphasis added) --Epeefleche 07:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However the fact that some people refer to "Jewish people" as "members of the Jewish nation" doesn't make "Jewish" an officially recognized nationality. Israel is a recognized nation, and thus "Israeli" would be a recognized nationality. But Jewish is an ethnicity or heritage that on occasion some of its members refer to them selves as "members of the Jewish nation". Israel has internationally recognized geographic borders and national sovereignty. You can have an international passport claiming that you are a "citizen of Israel". You can't, though, have an international passport claiming to be a "citizen of the Jewish nation". Dugwiki 17:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is recognize in Wiki as a nation, in the Wiki definition. The definition does not adopt your construct. Second, it is far more complicated than you make it out to be. The Jewish nation was dispersed 2,000 years ago, from its geographic borders. It lives largely in the diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are autmoatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel and become Israeli citizens.--Epeefleche 00:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again, the nation you're talking about above is Israel. Israel is the nation, and thus "Israeli" is the nationality, not "Jewish". It is "Israel's law of return", for example, and the name of the ancient biblical nation is likewise "Israel".
So I will reiterate that "Israeli" is clearly the nationality here, not "Jewish". If you are of Jewish heritage, that is your ethinicity, but it is not necessarily your nationality. An American jew, for example, is not going to be governed by "Jewish law", will not have a "Jewish passport" or "Jewish visa", or be an employee of the "Jewish government". But a citizen of Israsel can have an Israel passport or visa, would be governed by the national laws of Israel and could be employed by the Israeli government. The distinction is quite clear. Dugwiki 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a further analogy, a descendent of the Aztec empire would not be referred to as having a nationality of Aztec. Rather he would have nationality of whatever nation under whom he is governed as a citizen (eg Mexican nationality, or Columbian, etc). "Aztec" would be the ethnicity, because he shares a heritage with other people of similar ancestry. Ethnicity therefore represents ancestral background, while Nationality represents the nation state under which you are governed. "Jewish" is founded in ancestral heritage, while "Israeli" is founded in being governed by the nation state of Israel. Dugwiki 17:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, see User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. IZAK 07:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,Jewish are surely a Nation and an ethnic group. Pepole which have problems with it , should learn how to live with it-because its not going to change even if the Jewish categories will deleted.--Gilisa 07:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Skaters are categorised by state, not by ethnic group or nation, so you are advocating special treatment, not equal treatment. Haddiscoe 12:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First , I was just claming against one of the wikipedians that wrote :"Jews are not a nation". Secondly , Jewish people are also defined by their own religion (even if not practicing it) so you can categorize most of them by the religious heritage.--Gilisa 06:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No argument for deletion has been given that does not apply equally or even more strongly to hundreds of other categories. For example, there is no LGBT style of figure skating, and figure skaters represent their countries, not their sexual activities. It is POV to single out Jews.--R613vlu 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many users might also favour deleting those categories, but such deletions are hard to implement, because like Jewish categories LGBT categories are protected by well organised and determined special interest groups. The existence of some bad categories is never a justification for keeping others. It is an example of the disfunctional nature of Wikipedia, which you are proposing to make worse. If you change your vote you will help to create a precedent for deleting those inappropriate LGBT categories. Haddiscoe 12:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As an irrelevant intersection. Haddiscoe 12:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It occurs to me that if Category:Jewish figure skaters is deleted, the articles would then need to be upmerged into Category:Jewish sportspeople. If that category were deleted, all its members would be upmerged into Category:Jews. Categories like this one just do for Category:Jews what the other categories by nationality and occupation do for other nationalities- break down its members into neat little groups for easy comparison and/or location. Was the life of Jewish figure skaters different than that of other Jewish sportspeople? Sure, if only because figure-skating is different than other sports. This category probably exists mainly to help categorize Jews, not figure skaters. --Eliyak T·C 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The flaw in the above argument is that "Jewish" is not a nationality. It is an ethnicity or religion (depending on the context). "Israeli" would be a nationality. As I mentioned above nationalities are not handled the same way as ethnicities. Dugwiki 17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that ethnicity and occupation is a valid cross-section in certain cases. Category:Native American sportspeople is a perfect example of this. --Eliyak T·C 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that, contrary to Dugwiki's bald assertion to the contrary, Jews are a nation under Wiki (even if not in Dugwiki's subjective view), as discussed in my above comment.--Epeefleche 23:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I would say that you are misinterpreting the definition of "nationality", as well as the context of the article Jew. Note that in the introduction, for example, it specifically says "Jews are members of the Jewish people, an ethnic group originating in the Israelites of the ancient Middle East and converts who joined their fold throughout the millennia by adopting their religion." Thus being jewish is a definition of a person's ethnicity (note the highlighted phrase "ethnic group"). Dugwiki 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also notice above that it states that the ethnic group "Jews" originated from "the Israelites". Again, "Israelite" is the original nationality since the nation was "Israel". So "Israeli" or "Israelite" (whichever is proper) would be a nationality of a citizen of Israel, while "Jewish" is the ethnicity of someone with Israelite or otherwise Jewish ancestry. Dugwiki 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nevertheless, Eliyak is right - the articles would need to be upmerged, and if all the lower level categories were deleted, they would be upmerged to Jews. Or do people envsage that category being deleted too?--Brownlee 21:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nobody can explain why this is an irrelevant intersection yet LGBT figure skaters is relevant.--Brownlee 21:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just something else exists doesn't mean we should keep this cat. From a figure skater tree perspective, the distinction "Jewish" is not important or related to the profession. Would we create other subcategories of figure skaters for other religion? What about for their political party affiliation? I understand that there is a "Jewish sportspeople" category, and that there was an attempt to break down that category into subcategories based on sport. However, after going through each and every article, every person has at least one other article that notes that they are Jewish, (for example Category:Jewish American sportspeople), so this category is completely redundant with other existing cats (just look at the articles).-Andrew c 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Only the Jewish American sportspeople have such a category. In other words, for all non-Americans skaters, this is the only category that both mentions that they are Jewish and that they are skaters. --Epeefleche 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have read the above and there is no clear reason articulated for keeping this category. If Jew is a nation, when did they get their seat at the UN? The simple fact is that we have the nation of Israel that is the correct place for many of the valid intersections by nation. No one has indicated why this single category standing out as a forest of one needs to be kept. There is no reason for this over categorization and it is clearly a non-notable intersection by ethnicity. There has been no case presented that supports the notability of this intersection. The argument that there is a similar category that has not been nominated is not a reason to cause this one to be kept. Vegaswikian 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A nation is not the same thing as a country. Of course there is a Jewish nation, which is not identical withthe country of Israel. Still no explanation of why it is overcategorisation.--Holdenhurst 11:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would refer you to Nationality, which begins as follows - "Nationality is a relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the state. Traditionally under international law and conflict of laws principles, it is the right of each state to determine who its nationals are. Today the law of nationality is increasingly coming under more international regulation by various conventions on statelessness, as well as some multilateral treaties such as the European Convention on Nationality." The "Jewish Nationality" does not exist under that definition, per se, as the "Jewish nation" does not afford jurisdiction over the person or protection of the state. However, the nation of Israel does afford its citizens such protections and jurisdiction. Thus "Israeli" is the appropriate nationality for citizens of Israel, but "Jew" is instead an ethnicity that denotes cultural heritage without the legal sphere of influence implied by a nationality. Dugwiki 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some of you may get a chuckle out of this -- THE SKATING CHANUKAH SONG --Epeefleche 11:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no Jewish style of figure skating, and no one skates as a representative of the Jewish race. There is no connection between Jews and figure skating, just as there is no connection between green eyes and figures skating, so there is no reason to have this category. Jamie Mercer 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there should be no categorization of sportpeople on racial/ethnic/religious grounds. The only resonable categorization is by nationality, not in the broadest sense of the term, but in terms of which country a person represents/would represent in an international competition. --Soman 16:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So are you proposing the deletion of LGBT categories?--Runcorn 21:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, that would be a separate CfD, but yes I cannot see any function of categorizing sportspeople based on sexual orientation. --Soman 07:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eliyak--Mrs random 05:01, 20 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.

Category:Japanese private universities[edit]

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< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Japanese private universities to Category:Private universities in Japan
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to the usual Wikipedia style, as in Category:Universities and colleges in Japan. Oliver Han 16:25, 14 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.

Category:Psi Upsilon brothers[edit]

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< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Psi Upsilon brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as non-defining per numerous precedents. No-one has an article because he belongs to a college fraternity. Haddiscoe 15:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agreed, non-defining. — coelacan — 18:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Abberley2 20:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining per many, many precedents. Doczilla 00:48, 15 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.

Category:Afrikaans authors[edit]

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< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Afrikaans authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Afrikaans-language writers, convention of Category:Writers by language. -- Prove It (talk) 15:29, 14 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.

Category:International accountancy firms[edit]

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< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:International accountancy firms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - many of the accountancy firms are global and are in several countries. In addition, this is way over categorized. All that is required is one category Category:Accountancy firms as it was before. EnviroGranny 13:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sleep On It 04:51, 18 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.

Category:Accountancy firms by country[edit]

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, including subcats. >Radiant< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Accountancy firms by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - This is way over categorized. All that is required is one category Category:Accountancy firms as it was before. EnviroGranny 13:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These categories are not being used accurately, ie to categorise the firms by the countries where they are based, and if they were, some of the subcategories would be empty. Grouping accountancy firms by their HQ country is not inappropriate, but this set of categories is such a botch-job that is will be better to delete them all for now. Haddiscoe 16:02, 14 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.

Rock musical groups[edit]

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< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: convention of Category:Rock music groups by nationality. Xtifr tälk 13:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's irrelevant side-note: I had listed these at speedy, but then I realized they didn't meet the criterion I thought they did. I'm in no particular hurry, so I've voluntarily moved them to CfD. Xtifr tälk 13:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per nomination. Neonblak 15:02, 19 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.

Category:Comprehensive schools[edit]

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< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Comprehensive schools to Category:Comprehensive schools in the United Kingdom
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This is currently a United Kingdom category and needs to be renamed to reflect that. This move will allow the creation (as required) of Comp School cats in other countries and perhaps a new Category:Comprehensive Schools by country supercat. Frelke 12:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does any other country use the term "comprehensive school"? Abberley2 20:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know Ireland does. Not sure about others. Frelke 22:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Mowsbury 09:57, 15 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.

Category:American murdered children[edit]

Category:Canadian murdered children[edit]

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 both. >Radiant< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American murdered children to Category:Murdered American children
Propose renaming Category:Canadian murdered children to Category:Murdered Canadian children
Nominator's Rationale: Rename for clarity, following the recent decision not to delete. This category is not delimited to children who were murdered by American people (through most of them were), and it has nothing to do with killings by the American government.Annandale 11:54, 14 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.

Bigamists[edit]

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 Upmerge, no consensus to delete but individual categories too small to be viable. --Xdamrtalk 11:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bigamists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Umbrella nom for this and all subcats. Pejorative category. Out of the less than 20 articles in the entire cat + subs, only 1 or 2 were actually famous for being bigamists (for religious reasons or in spite of them), and the others were just footnotes in the lives of people who were famous (or notorious) for other things, and thus isn't a very useful category. MSJapan 04:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As most of the articles linked would be involving original research rather than confirmed fact, contrary to WP:NPOVNetkinetic(t/c/@) 05:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all It is not a "pejorative adjective", it is a legal concept. Haddiscoe 11:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fair enough, but in most of the cases, no legal action was noted in the article (legal action was mostly on the historical English and British entries). Steven Seagal may have had marriages annulled, but he was never convicted in a court of bigamy. Neither was Isaac Singer, and neither was Alois Hitler, Jr.. Rudolph Valentino was only classified as a bigamist because he didn't wait long enough on his divorce papers. In short, many of the category entries don't fit the legal definition of the term. If they did, I'd see no problem with the cat. MSJapan 19:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per previous discussion of less than one month ago. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 18. Annandale 11:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I saw the problems described above (mainly the loose use of the term "bigamist") when I first nominated the category tree for deletion. An anonymous user also recently contacted me to ask about how to clean up the categories; I could only recommend deletion. Also note that the previous discussion reached no consensus, which means that further discussion is apropriate at this time. Dr. Submillimeter 15:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only one other user supported your previous nomination, so it should have been closed as a straight keep decision. The implication of your assertion is that whereas decisions to delete are final, failed deletion attempts are merely a temporary inconvenience to an ongoing attempt to get a deletion. That approach would skew the process away from acting on community consensus on a case by case basis, towards an objective of maximising the number of deletions as an end in itself. Haddiscoe 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - After reviewing the previous discussion, I agree that it could have been closed as "keep". My general understanding is that discussions that are closed as "no consensus" should be discussed further but that discussions closed as "keep" should be left alone. By that logic, I would acquiesce to closing this discussion if appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 07:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: possibly these categpories may be preserved by limiting them to historical persons. Back in time being discovered as a bigamist may have redefine one's life. Pavel Vozenilek 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bigamy is a crime, a defining characteristic, and easy to define. Wrt to Pavel's point, there has been no legal or societal change towards acceptance of bigamy, it is just as significant as it ever was. Abberley2 20:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Abberley2. I think it should be kept with the understanding that only those actually convicted of the crime of bigamy should be included: e.g., George Reynolds (1842-1909) should be included but Brigham Young should not. If it's approached that way, there's not a lot that can be said against the category. -SESmith 02:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this is a repeat nomination, and per above.-Andrew c 03:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete get rid of it Sleep On It 04:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is a legal category and easily definable. Obvious keep. Beigestudent 08:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least upmerge as there are insufficient members to warrant categorization by country. I suspect that removing POV/OR issues will drop membership further. Also, should be renamed to "convicted bigamists" if we're going by that inclusion criterion. Finally, I would suggest relisting to get more discussion on that, moreso because several of the "keep" arguments boil down to "it's been kept before". >Radiant< 09:20, 20 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.

Category:Royal Navy First Sea Lords[edit]

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< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Royal Navy First Sea Lords to Category:First Sea Lords
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "First Sea Lord" is an office unique to the Royal Navy. Therefore, the "Royal Navy" part of the category name is redundant. Choess 02:12, 14 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.

Category:Rare bibles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Natalie Erin as recreation of deleted content. — coelacan — 22:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rare bibles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 24#Famous and Rare bibles. This seems like recreation of deleted material. It was created a day after the discussion closed. The previously deleted cat was Category:Rare special bibles. Removing the word 'special' was not part of the consensus reached at the previous CfD. Besides, there is only a single article in this category. Andrew c 00:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Andrew c - well spotted! I still think an "Early printed Bibles" is the way to go here. Johnbod 01:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G4, so tagged. — coelacan — 08:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 21:52, 14 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.

Category:School principals[edit]

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< 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:School principals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:School principals and headteachers, duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, that merge works. — coelacan — 08:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and keep as a redirect. Haddiscoe 11:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect is probably a good idea. This is one I would expect to keep returning otherwise. — coelacan — 22:27, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_14&oldid=1144513739"