Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 5 May 7 >

May 6[edit]

Category:Ethnic Hungarian politicians outside of Hungary[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 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 debate was merge to Category:People of Hungarian descent. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnic Hungarian politicians outside of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This is overcategorisation based on a slight connection. The new President of France is in almost as many Hungarian categories as French categories, which is just silly. He should be in one at most (none would be fine as well, as having a Hungarian immigrant father is of little relevance to his public career), and if this one is deleted, he will still be in two. The same sort of thing applies in other cases. Brandon97 22:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - While the category should not be deleted just because the new French president is in it, this is a triple intersection between ethnicity, career and location and is overcategorization. Merge to Category:People of Hungarian descent and then disperse the member articles to an appropriate subcat if one exists. Otto4711 22:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Otto as overcategorization. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overcategorization. Nothing special about Hungarian politicians abroad than any other nationality Bulldog123 11:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As triple intersection. Mowsbury 11:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least merge. There is only a marginal connection between these people. Greg Grahame 13:08, 12 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional band members[edit]

Category:Fictional band members to Category:Fictional musicians
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 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 debate was merge. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bob Weir songs[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 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 debate was rename to Category:Songs by Bob Weir. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bob Weir songs to Category:Grateful Dead songs
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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Redirects for names[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. BHG is right: the category shouldn't be deleted unless the template is. But it should be named to match the template.--Mike Selinker 05:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Redirects for names to Category:Redirects from sort names
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To better describe the category's contents. Alternatively, I'd be perfectly happy with an outcome of Delete; this category (and template, and the redirects herein) seem pretty useless to me. Given that we have some 300,000 biographies and only 66 pages in this category it would seem that the general populace haven't found it useful either. kingboyk 21:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-redirects are automatic and seamless, and having a category to list these automatically seems useless. --MChew 17:32, 12 May 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:Redirects from New York City area bus labels[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 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 debate was rename to Category:Redirects from New York City area bus routes. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Redirects from New York City area bus labels to Category:Redirects from New York City area bus routes or Category:Redirects from New York City bus routes
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Labels" doesn't sound like the proper terminology. kingboyk 21:06, 6 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Star formation[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 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 debate was keep. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star formation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete — Category had a single page entry and a template. These have been relocated to the Stellar evolution template. Even the main article page for the category was not categorized under this name. The Category:Stellar evolution only has 29 members, so deleting this sub-category shouldn't cause any heartburn. RJH (talk) 20:02, 6 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shared IP cats[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 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 debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. With the exception of Category:Shared IP addresses from educational institutions, these four are the only subcats of Category:Shared IP addresses. I don't see any reason why these are subcategorized. All remaining pages should be upmerged. --- RockMFR 17:22, 6 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pages with special characters[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 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 debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages with special characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Now empty (except for the below cat). Formerly was populated by a template, but is no longer. Everything else that was in the category was recently deleted. No need for this self-reference. --- RockMFR 17:05, 6 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles containing Indic text[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 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 debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles containing Indic text (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Now empty. Formerly was populated by a template, but is no longer. No need for this self-reference. --- RockMFR 17:05, 6 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Websites running the LiveJournal engine[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 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 debate was delete. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Websites running the LiveJournal engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Contains one article (LiveJournal). Doesn't seem to have any chance of being expanded. --- RockMFR 16:59, 6 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jericho Images[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 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 debate was rename. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jericho Images to Category:Jericho (TV series) images

Category:Jericho characters to Category:Jericho (TV series) characters
Category:Jericho episodes to Category:Jericho (TV series) episodes

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to match the lead article Jericho (TV series) and correct capitalization. Not sure if this qualifies as speedy. Otto4711 15:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per nom, category names should match their main article. Dugwiki 20:05, 7 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kyle XY[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 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 debate was nomination withdrawn --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Propose renaming Category:Kyle XY to Category:Kyle XY characters

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - everything in the category except the show's article is an article on a character. Otto4711 14:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - looks like this will end up in favor of having someone do extra work so rather than wait for that outcome to get ratified I'll just go ahead and do the extra work. Otto4711 21:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create new category for characters - there are other articles about the show that i've found that weren't included in the category but now I've added them. eLLe.Le 00:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - added back main articles into category (which he removed on the 6th with no discussion, and never mentioned he did so in the nom :\...) Matthew 07:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've now said twice, the articles are for episodes and are categorized under Category:Kyle XY episodes. Even if this category isn't renamed, the same article should not be categorized under two different Kyle XY categories. So the choices for getting the character articles into a proper characters category are to create a spanking new category and move all of the character articles into it (which would incidentally leave this category virtually empty and rife for deletion) or we could simply rename the one that already has all of the character articles in it to reflect that and stop adding the articles that are in Category:Kyle XY episodes back to it. Otto4711 12:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An episode category is only useful when you have episode pages. Matthew 12:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems you are using weasel words and making false assumptions based on an incorrect reading of this nomination and are failing to assume good faith. Otto4711 15:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is sufficient content and, as this is a current series with a new season beginning in June, plenty of room for growth. Tim! 06:31, 11 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The 10th Kingdom[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 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 debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The 10th Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - nothing left in the cat after creating and populating the characters subcat but that subcat and the article on the show. No need for this category for navigation. Otto4711 14:50, 6 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:8th & Ocean[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 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 debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:8th & Ocean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category contains the article on the show and the modeling agency from the show. These two articles are easily interlinked and the category is not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 14:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I note that it is a real modelling agency, which is properly categorised in the category for real modelling agencies. Mowsbury 11:15, 7 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:7th Heaven[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 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 debate was delete.
A simple headcount would suggest "no consensus" (3 !votes each way), but CfD is not a vote. The arguments to delete cite precedent and (implicitly) WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth and WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people, whereas reasons for the "keep" !votes are one WP:USEFUL and Kingboyk's dislike of WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. A guideline is not set in stone, but is supposed to be followed with the "occasional exception"; disliking the guideline may be grounds for seeking a change in the guideline, but it is not a reason to disregard the guideline in any individual case. So the deletes have it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:7th Heaven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - after the recategorization of various articles to the appropriate subcats, the remaining material is insufficient to warrant the category. All of the material is easily interlinked through the main article on the show. Otto4711 14:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Contains 3 correctly categorised articles and 2 subcategories. That's plenty, and these container categories help with navigation imho. --kingboyk 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A similar number of articles and subcats were deemed insufficient to require categories for Three's Company, Bo' Selecta!, American Dad!, Jackass, The Black Donneleys, Medium and others. And to save a certain someone the trouble, yes the recent nomination for American Dragon: Jake Long resulted in "keep" but the trend in recent nominations has been away from eponymous categories in the absence of a substantial amount of material that can't be easily interlinked and otherwise categorized. Since all of these articles can be easily interlinked and in fact are interlinked through a navtemplate, and since there's nothing that isn't already well-categorized elsewhere, there's no need for the category. Otto4711 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, but I disagree with that trend. I find eponymous categories helpful and logical, and 3 articles and 2 subcategories to be quite enough. Cheers. --kingboyk 21:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per kingboyk. Tim! 07:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Otto. It looks like everything in this category can easily be navigated by using the main article instead, making the eponymous category unnecessary. Dugwiki 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Useful category, deleting can only serve to be a detriment. Matthew 07:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template provides any necessary navigation between the articles. Keep the subcategories. Vegaswikian 02:45, 11 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:3rd Rock from the Sun[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 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 debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3rd Rock from the Sun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Other than the show's article, everything in the category is an improperly categorized cast/crew article. The category is not needed for navigation and is unlikely to grow. Otto4711 14:20, 6 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Critic[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 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 debate was delete. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Critic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - in the absence of the improperly categorized articles on cast and crew, all that would remain is the article on the show and on a Simpsons ep where the main character appeared. Small category with no likelihood of growth, category not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 14:14, 6 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Romantic interests of Elliott Smith[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 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 debate was delete. Conscious 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romantic interests of Elliott Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, overcategorisation by a trivial characteristic, this can be covered in the Elliott Smith article. cab 12:29, 6 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Australian test cricketers killed in action[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 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 debate was upmerge. Conscious 11:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian test cricketers killed in action to Category:Cricketers killed in action
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I doubt this could be expanded in the future (I hope not, anyway!), and it only contains one article at the moment. Rename and add in Jasper Vinall for one. Lugnuts 10:35, 6 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Municipalities in Arauca[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 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 debate was rename --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Municipalities in Arauca to Category:Municipalities of Arauca
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category's 30 siblings all use "of": this is the only "in". Potentially speediable. Alai 04:20, 6 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Quality Guru[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Quality Guru to Category:Quality experts
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 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 debate was rename. Conscious 11:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale: Rename: capitalization and style. Sumahoy 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's an industry standard term, it would seem very odd to change to the generic and unused term "experts". My example would be "Philip Crosby's Reflections on Quality: 295 Inspirations from the World's Foremost Quality Guru"; if Crosby calls himself a Quality Guru this seems to prove the point. Ashley VH 07:11, 6 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Enderverse novels and short stories[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 to Category:Ender's Game series novels. A rename is clearly favored by everyone, and Enderverse does seem to be a fan construction, so I went with what I believe to be the least controversial option.--Mike Selinker 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Enderverse novels and short stories to Category:Enderverse novels
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This used to cover both novels and short stories, but now that I've merged them into List of Enderverse short stories and First Meetings, this just covers novels. The category should be changed to appropriately reflect this. hbdragon88 01:31, 6 May 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:Gay Nazis[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 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 debate was delete. Conscious 11:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay Nazis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Possibly created in bad faith (see the usernames of the two users that created it). This category is not particularly encyclopedic, though not nearly as bad as the next one. --BigDT 01:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 06:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable; as the article on Ernst Röhm illustrates, there seems to be a lack of robust evidence about homeosexuality amongst the Nazis. Plenty of thorough analysis of a homoerotic current in Nazi imagery, but less on the individuals, which would leave the category imbalanced. I'm sure that there is plenty of scope for an article on the subject, but given the difficulties in sourcing, I can't see how a category can work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BrownHairedGirl Sleep On It 21:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete invalid intersection, no article Gay Nazis exists nor likely could it (in part due to the problems flagged by BrownHairedGirl). Carlossuarez46 00:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing special about a Nazi who's gay any more than a Nazi with a Slav or Jewish ancestor. No categories for such. Bulldog123 11:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I strongly disagree with Bulldog123. Nazi persecution of gay people is a well-documented and notorious subject, so this is a very significant intersection between the persecuted and the persecutor, comparable in some ways to "Jewish Nazis". Only the sourcing problem above prevent me from recommending a "strong keep". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why have lots of gay categories but not this one, unless one wants to pretend that gays don't do bad things? Mowsbury 11:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you care to explain why all positive connotations for LGBT/gay people seem to be considered notable, yet all negative connotations are considered non-notable? It seems to me that the categorisation in this field is utterly and deliberately biased. Mowsbury 13:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is only one person in this category. Seems like undue weight to have a category for one person.--Sefringle 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization. I strongly disagree that this is a trivial intersection, but it is a small category with little or no likelihood of growth. Otto4711 18:43, 12 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gay Neo-Nazis[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 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 debate was no consensus. Conscious 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay Neo-Nazis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Possibly created in bad faith (see the usernames of the two users that created it). This category is horribly unencyclopedic and has already been used for vandalism. --BigDT 01:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why are categories like Category:Jewish American actors allowed, then? Unknown Unknowns 09:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to be a relevant intersection as Neo-Nazism is generally anti-gay and therefore it effected these men's activities.--T. Anthony 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doczilla Sleep On It 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete invalid intersection, no article Gay Neo-Nazis exists and likely couldn't. Carlossuarez46 00:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In theory I could make Homosexuality and Neo-Nazism, just like we have Homosexuality and Zoroastrianism or Homosexuality and Voodoo. I'm not going to do it mind you, but I think it could be done just as plausibly as those were done.--T. Anthony 10:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and most - if not all - of the contents of that article would be about Neo-Nazi attacks on homosexuals, so again the intersection is not valid because it would not be about gay neo-Nazis. Carlossuarez46 19:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similar could be said about Category:LGBT Muslims, not that Islam is the same as Neo-Nazism. However no form of Islam, that I'm aware of, accepts homosexuality. The way of things at present seems to indicate LGBT people in groups that hate them is also relevant. That outlook might be deeply flawed, but it's how things go at present.--T. Anthony 20:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article Al-Fatiha Foundation and the references/links there, and one's awareness may grow. :-) Carlossuarez46 20:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why have lots of gay categories but not this one, unless one wants to pretend that gays don't do bad things? Mowsbury 11:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's ludicrous. --BigDT 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete undue weight to have a category for only three people--Sefringle 03:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Havign this category would be like having "african-american white supermisist". Also, ww shouldn't categorize by sexual prefence.
  • Keep Gay people who deny racism within their own community are nearly as bad as Germans who deny the Holocaust. This category can also be used to publicise the hypocracy of many homophobes. Unknown Unknowns 09:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ummm ... what? This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for social justice. --BigDT 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a notable intersection given the attitude of neo-Nazi people and organizations toward homosexuality and homosexuals. Otto4711 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto as a notable intersection, with greater possibilities of verifiability than Category:Gay Nazis above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 14 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sleeper Cell (TV series)[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 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 debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sleeper Cell (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - small category, little or no potential for growth. The material is all easily interlinked through the main article. Category is not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 00:50, 6 May 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 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_May_6&oldid=1138388804"