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:do not rename. (Nominator recently removed the category tagging, so perhaps this could be interpreted as a withdrawal of the proposal.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The link to the previous CfD does not seem to be working, but the nominated category seems to be an appropriate sub-category for Quebec music and Companies based in Quebec. And as the nominator knows, Quebec and French Canadian are not necessarily the same thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but that's not an argument for renaming this one. You can create them, but off the top of my head I'd say creating provincial and territorial record label categories for every jurisdiction would be WP:OC, based on the small population of some provinces and all territories. Oppose this rename proposal. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that I would be very much against having categories for every provincial and territorial record label and so a renaming seems appropriate. Can you suggest another name? I'm not tied to Category:French Canadian record labels (it was just suggested in the deletion discussion). Argolin (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't "province" it's Quebec culture and general Canadian culture; bearing in mind that Quebec culture is different from general French-Canadian culture... and that the Quebec cultural market for domestic culture is seemingly larger than the Canadian market for Canadian domestic culture (for the English marketplace...) 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, French Canadian is problematic in all kinds of ways, since it's an ethnic group rather than a region/state. We'd have to get into the ethnic origins of the artists recorded by the label and/or who owns the company. Bad idea, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose There are two cultural markets in Canada, "Canada" and "Quebec"; Quebec cultural products are in French and marketted in Quebec, rarely outside of it, with some spillover to New Brunswick. Canadian cultural products are marketted across the country. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm sure there are Quebec labels that do a huge amount of English-language recording, given the size of Montreal's indie rock scene, for example. But that's still not a reason, for me, for renaming and re-purposing the Quebec record label cat. Maybe there is a place for a French-Canadian record label, overlapping but not identical to Quebec. If someone wants to create it, fine; I don't. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am looking for clairity in what belongs in this category. I am well aware of Montreal's big indie rock scene. Do we want record labels placed in those other cats also placed in this one? Argolin (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What "other cats"? Certainly record labels can be in multiple categories. It might be a good idea to better acquaint yourself with category structure before undertaking more category deletion nominations or creation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. — ξxplicit 01:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is for U.S. politicians that have been fingered by an environmental lobby group as being weak on environmental issues. Addition to this list is not defining for these politicians and it comes close to the line of being a type of attack category. At the very least it amounts to promotion of or shilling for this lobby group. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's an accusatory categorization. It's not a self-description, it's not neutral, and it's not appropriate. Will Bebacktalk 05:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Seems very POV and just slanderous. Torchiesttalk/contribs 09:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NPOV violation, and as WP:OCAT categorization by inclusion in another publication's subjectively chosen list. Bearcat (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. My initial impression was merely that "artist" needed to be pluralized. But I bring it here rather than the speedy section in case it is thought better by consensus to rename this to Category:Images of artists' impressions of exoplanets. Or someone might have a better suggestion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on first, Oppose on second: "Images of artists' impressions" is redundant, as said impressions are by nature images. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't these all be moved to Commons? They all seem by the same guy, who has kindly released them under the right license I think? Otherwise I'd prefer Category:Artists' images of exoplanets. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they can—and should be—it's just a matter of getting someone who (a) knows how to do it, and (b) is willing to do it. I'm weak on the first; stronger on the second; incompetent overall. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Taking the WP:OC#EPONYMOUS guideline into consideration, which has been cited, this appears to be the kind of thing that is there discouraged. It's also being used to categorize people who worked as actors, writers, directors, etc. in the series, which violates another categorization guideline. Finally, note that this is re-creation of material that has been previously deleted by consensus. Users should note per the WP:OWN policy (which presumably can be applied to categories) that not every nomination of one's own creation should be taken personally.Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category of three articles and a template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:POINTY. This editor tried to get me block for unredirecting List of Forever Knight episodes, and is now taking his revenge on CfD and TfD because that failed. Now he's waging war against expansions of all things Forever Knight related. I created the cateogry mere hours, this is pure stalkerdom.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing "pointy" about it. It is an inappropriate category. We don't create categories for three articles, and YOU are the one who started an editor war over the list and seem to be pointedly continuing to do so purely to do so, per your revert of my delinking a redlink for an unnotable person. Creating a template and category for three articles is not an expansion, and your continued incivility is grating. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Categories are intended as navigation aids, but the infobox and template should be quite adequate for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories and navboxes do not compete against each other. And if this editor gets his/her way, the navbox (which isn't even linked to yet) will be deleted as well, leaving nothing for navigation at all. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—small categories are still categories. Even if just a handful of readers find it useful, what's the harm? Let's see how it develops before making knee-jerk (instantaneous) reactions. HWV258. 21:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can't develop any further unless other articles are coming forth, of which there is only one other likely one (a character list, which is unnecessary as the series had only a relatively small handful of regular characters). -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? The article on the main character was deleted by consensus as he is unnotable (no significant coverage). None of the other characters are notable. The novels are not notable. So you have a series article, episode list, and a character list, plus the film. Four tops. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) Consensus can change 2) It was not even consensus, the majority voted keep, and deletion happened mostly on grounds of neutrality and content issues. Would it kill you to assume good faith for a while? And there's nothing wrong with a category containing 4 articles (although it can certainly contain more than 4). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after the CfD, the category creator began adding various people to the category who worked as cast or staff on the series. Per general consensus (as far as I am aware), this is not the correct use of a televisions series category as the people are not defined by "Forever Knight". -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Davies played a character named Nick Knight. He is NOT said character and has gone on to start in other notable roles. Being a writer on the series does not mean Parriott is defined by Forever Knight nor the film.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – eponymous categories should be used mainly as parent categories for properly defined subcats, and there are no subcats nor any likelihood of any. Otherwise we get a random collection of articles which have some unspecified link with the main article. Occuli (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment four articles is a reasonable category size. Ship categories with only three entries commonly exist. As for eponymous category use, I don't see how that can be, since most categories are named identical to their main articles, and alot of them have no subcategories. If they are all closely related to the main article, I can't see how it can be a random collection. I don't see President Barack Obama ever being categorized into this (which would be a random collection of articles) 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 01:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 01:26, 20 May 2010 (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:Wikipedians interested in everything[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. — ξxplicit 01:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Everything facilitates collaboration, for without everything there would be no collaboration. —Eekerz(t) 19:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Such a category offers no aid in facilitating collaboration. Resolute 20:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. — ξxplicit 01:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - I use Twitter too. Categorizing users by this fact, however, does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. Unanimous history of deletion of similar categories here. VegaDark (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No objection from me, as the creator of the category. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:18, 12 May 2010 (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:Wikipedians interested in social problems[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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Social problems" is far too broad of a topic to be able to facilitate any sort of collaboration between users. VegaDark (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Environmentalism is a much more narrow topic than "social problems", which as indicated by Category:Social issues covers everything from crime and war to poverty and unemployment. More specific categories would be far better to facilitate collaboration. That being said, even "Environmentalism" seems fairly broad and that category itself could potentially benefit from being narrower. How, exactly, is this category supposed to be used for collaboration? There are potentially thousands topics "social problems" could cover. This is marginally more useful than a "Wikipedians interested in stuff" category. VegaDark (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much too vague, and open to interpretation as to what qualifies as a social problem. Torchiesttalk/contribs 17:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. — ξxplicit 01:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Individual user" category. Unanimous precedent for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. — ξxplicit 01:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Individual user" category. Unanimous precedent for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. — ξxplicit 20:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Not sure how categorizing users based on being rural or not can possibly help facilitate collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Proposing deletion. Besides the offensive name, the category seems ambiguously defined at best. The four entries are easily accommodated at Category:Documentary television series. GobonoboTC 14:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose The main article for this has been moved to shanty town, so that's already an issue. I would suggest Category: Shanty towns as reflecting that move. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2010 (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.
WikiProject Association Football competitions articles categories[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 all. — ξxplicit 01:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These categories were created as part of the assessment process for a WikiProject that was created without authorisation from the WikiProjects council. The WikiProject has now been deleted, so the categories are now redundant. – PeeJay 08:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Did you just decide to delete a WikiProject on your own free will? Kingjeff (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of your unilaterally created WikiProject was agreed upon in a discussion at WT:FOOTY. You obviously don't go there though or you would know that the articles covered by your Project are also covered by WP:FOOTY and its season article task force (WP:FSATF). – PeeJay 16:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how WT:FOOTY has jurisdiction over another WikiProject. Kingjeff (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the project (and the resultant categories) should not have been created in the first place. The creation of the project did not go through the due process of WP:COUNCIL. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the categories are not needed. The project was a duplicate of another project already in existance. As someone who doesn't edit soccer (football) articles at all and has no interest in them whatsoever, I might recommend that Kingjeff try working with the task force that already exists to get the articles he is concerned about up to par. No need to duplicate each others work and to waste each others time arguing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Another small batch of renames. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is a particualrly stupid application of a bad rename decision. If it must be changed it should be to Category:Arctic populated places of Canada. They are called settlements because they are settled by people in contrast to most of the Arctic, which is completely unsettled. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Settlements is a specific type of legal community in Canada which is why the bulk conversion required manual handling. I have checked a hanful of these and they do not appear to be legally defined as settlements, so at least for Canada they can not be at settlements since they are not settlements. As to Russia, I suppose that you could consider Category:Inhabited Arctic localities of Russia as an alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand the contents of the Russian category, it contains settlements that are both inhabited and uninhabited, therefore none of the category title changes you have proposed make any sense whatsoever. The same applies to Greenland, which, as I previously stated, also includes sub-categories covering uninhabited places, so again, "populated places" would not be appropriate for this category either. Maybe I have got totally the wrong end of the stick, but it appears to me that you have made a decision about Canadian settlements, seen a number of other categories with similar titles and decided they therefre all need renaming. I would ask that you review the contents of each category, and then consider whether "populated places" is appropriate. It seems to me that this proposal needs to be withdrawn. Fenix down (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read this discussion. The categories are for any place that is or was populated. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that article is far too long, you'll have to pull quotes out of it as I can't see anything to support your statement in it. Regardless, can you explain how it makes sense to call a category "populated whatevers" when it contains links to settlements that aren't populated. It's inherently confusing, not only at category level, but also article level. Take this article, as I understand your arguement, a user would read the article, see in the infobox that the population was nil, read how it has been liquidated and then find at the bottom of the article a link to a category for "populated whatevers". It seems to me that whilst your proposal will produce nice, neat uniform categories that will make pernickety editors pleased, it only serves to confuse casual users of WP, who are simply looking for information. I have no problem semantically with "settlements" being replaced with "places", or "localities" if people feel that it is more appropriate, but the idea of including the word "populated" in the category title is just wrong, for the reasons I have stated previously.
I feel I must make comment about your choice of proposed titles, which in my opinion are really quite clumsy. "Populated places of arctic Russia" flows much more readily off the toungue and using the phrase "arctic Russia" (or indeed "arctic anything") directly ties in with the template on each category explaining what qualifies for inclusion.This is just my opinion though, I'm not going to object to anything on personal semantic grounds. Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It seems to me that that title just sounds better, particularly as what qualifies as "arctic appears to a little vague, hence the necessity for the template at the top of these categories. Saying arctic places to me implies a place with an arctic climate that may be within a larger area that is not necessarily "arcitc", whereas saying places in arctic Russia suggests to me places within a wider geographical area that can be said to be arctic. Maybe I'm making to much of this, I certainly would want to make a big deal out of it if others were happy with the category title. I do have to reiterate though, I fail to see how having a category entitled "Populated Places" that includes unpopulated and liquidated settlements isn't inherently confusing to the casual user, but it appears that this isn't a problem to most other people! Fenix down (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This makes no sense, the Russian category contains settlements now abandoned, or research stations which are either only periodically inhabited or, like Barneo are rebuilt each year. They are not all populated, to change the category title would be misleading and factually incorrect. I also note that there is a sub category in Category:Settlements_in_Greenland for former settlements too which would look out of place if this ultimately semantic name change went ahead. Fenix down (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2010 (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:Arctic populated places of the United States[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. — ξxplicit 20:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This simply does not read right. Does the Arctic populate places? This was mentioned in the broader CfD but was likely missed in the rename hysteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per several rather long discussions, settlements is being phased out in categories since it carries some negative baggage. So renaming to the old form does not appear to be productive when the others will also be changing from what they are. It takes a while to sort through and nominate thousands of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2010 (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:Canadian sportspeople of European descent[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.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, and a triple intersection. "European descent" is also remarkably vague and non-defining, as a sizeable majority of Canadians would qualify for that description. Resolute 00:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Triple intersection and European descent is so vague as to not be helpful categorization. I am glad you nominated this as I have been thinking about doing it for awhile. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You created all but last one, just because no one has gotten around to nominating those ones doesn't mean they aren't just as bad as this one. You might want to read WP:WAX. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WAX applies to article pages, not category pages. But to address the point of noteworthiness anyway, to Canadians as a whole being of European descent may not be noteworthy, but from world viewpoint, where no one "race" (Asian, Black, White) is the majority, being of European descent is just as noteworthy as being Asian, Black African descent, or any other descent. Mayumashu (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WAX applies to anything you are deleting. Trying to argue that you shouldn't delete this because something else exists is always a poor arguement. -DJSasso (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out some of those categories. I will be certain to nominate them once this debate closes. Resolute 20:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. — ξxplicit 01:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This isn't a well-defined category. It appears to be intended to list relatives of the British politician Harriet Harman; the user who created it created several articles related to her, and has since been blocked indefinitely. It is a stretch to include some of these people as part of a 'Harman family': Jack Dromey, Antonia Fraser and Frank Pakenham never used the name Harman. (They are respectively Harriet's husband, her cousin, and her uncle by marriage.) This type of thing would be better done as a category, or (since I suspect it was created for POV reasons) deleted altogether. Robofish (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The user was blocked indefinitely for having an inappropriate username. They are now operating under the name Harperson123(talk·contribs). It may be worth advising that account of this discussion. Road Wizard (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete, distant relative template, little value as internal links are already in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The category was nominated for G4 shortly after it was created but was refused on the grounds that it is not a recreation. It is similar to a previous category, but not a strict recreation according to the letter of the G4 criteria. Road Wizard (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe categories like these originated to track political dynasties (possibly begining with US articles as that is where they seem to be most common). However I am not aware of any sources that point to the "Harman family" as a significant political dynasty; in fact many of the articles that end up in this category have very tentative connections to Harman. It seems to be bordering on original research to group all these people into a single unit around one politician. Road Wizard (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Twenty years ago they would all have been Category:relatives of Virginia Bottomley, who is not even included here, nor is her brother. Who knows what new talent is being incubated. The difficulty of tracing these relationships via the articles argues for keeping the category. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2010 (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.
Relisted at 2010 MAY 31 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)